Hi, my name is Angie Luna I run 2 sober houses in Springfield and was recently cited by Jacksonville's municipal code enforcement. One of the houses code enforcement didn't even enter the house to inspect, yet still left a violation notice. I set up a meeting with the Chief of Municipal Code Enforcement and invited Gloria Devall to join me at that meeting. We just returned from that meeting this morning where Chief (Kim Scott) claimed was a "courtesy meeting". Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code". They were reluctant to provide any information on what the intent of the code is. Looks like we are headed to court!
Angie Luna
There was a thread about this topic a little while ago.
Honestly, I don't remember the exact details of Jax's code, but these sorts of restrictions are extremely common. They are particularly common in college towns, when neighborhoods don't want single family homes converted into group housing for several college students. In some towns, the limit is 3 non-related people in the same unit.
It's a bit contentious, and I'm not exactly in favor of such strict use-based codes - but that's the law. It's very common and there's not much you can do about it if you are in violation.
Also, Springfield's historic overlay has other provisions against certain social service functions in the neighborhood. Since this forum has turned into the "Springfield Personal Vendetta Forum" I'm sure several members will hijack this issue shortly.
Bottom line, it's going to depend on the facts of your case, but you're probably in violation of some long-standing zoning code. I'm sure you'll be able to whip up sympathy from the forum's resident class-warriors. But I strongly suggest that you have a serious conversation with a land use attorney. If your sober houses do violate the zoning code or the historic overlay, I recommend that you save yourself the aggravation and relocate your facilities.
On a personal note, I think sober houses are a great service, but Springfield is the wrong neighborhood for them. There is still a street drug trade in the area. The same walkabilty that makes Springfield such a great place becomes a horrible liability when it means that recovering addicts are within walking distance of a bar or liquor store. It's unfair to the neighborhood and your clients to stick them in the middle of such temptation. My two cents.
Thank you for your comments. In regards to your comments about the neighborhood, your right Springfield is a tough area especially if you are in recovery. For every addict, if you want to get drunk you will regardless of where you live. Alcohol is sold in every gas station, grocery store, convience store and many restaurants. There isn't a neighborhood around that doesn't have at least one of the above and within walking distance. It's just my opinion, but it seems like this city should be spending more time cleaning up the drug problem than trying to hurt the people who are.
When I rented one of the houses (a triplex), I rented just the first floor, the second and third apartments were already rented out and the tenants were smoking crack upstairs, drug dealers coming in and out of the house and people sitting on the front porch drinking. I refused to sublease that unit until the landlord evicted those tenants and agreed to lease the rest of the building if he did. This paticular house is now clean, the yard is taken care of, the doors are locked at 10:30 so people aren't coming in and out at all hours of the night and the families who live there are now the ones calling the police on nearby homes when they see drug dealing and prostitution occurring.
Sorry, but I feel passionate about this subject. Getting back to the issue. The code clearly states 5 unrelated people can live in a single family dwelling and since we aren't violating that code, I'm just not sure I understand where the problem lies. As a side note, the folks who rent one of the homes have all lived there together for the last 4 years. This is clearly, their family, they plan meals together, eat together, share in cleaning the house, watch tv together....this IS their family.
I'd check the historic district overlay and see if a sober house qualifies as a use that's prohibited under certain circumstances. Maybe that's the code violation they are talking about. I'd also look at the general zoning code again too. A sober house might qualify as a group home or under some other social service category. That could trigger other restrictions that make it irrelevant whether you are under the 5 person limit.
Having a triplex might be in your favor though. As long as it's still officially a triplex, that equals 3 units, and you could have as many as 15 non-related people living there (again, notwithstanding any other social service restrictions).
Your last point is a dead-end though. There's plenty of case law about what constitutes a "family" and it's almost entirely blood and marriage. So that argument won't help you.
Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code".
- "spirit of the law/code" issues are not unique to zoning. These are in play in other legal situations too. More times than not and judge will side with the "spirit of the law" in my experience. But who knows.
Quote from: fsu813 on January 07, 2010, 04:38:42 PM
Although the code states that 5 unrelated people can live in a single family home they were clear to share "that is not the intent of the code".
- "spirit of the law/code" issues are not unique to zoning. These are in play in other legal situations too. More times than not and judge will side with the "spirit of the law" in my experience. But who knows.
...and what experience would that be?
We have a law on the books, five or fewer. If that isn't right, you change the law. You don't allow field workers to interprete legal issues and then aim that interpretation at a protected class of people.
And not get in trouble with the feds.
From MY experience, the "field workers" wont act without blessing of the city lawyers.
Then we ought to have an interesting time...
& btw, if they are coming after the alcoholics in recovery today...who will they come after tomorrow? A married gay couple is not recognized as "related" in the state of Florida. Neither are college roomates, an unmarried couple...
QuoteAs per the meeting this morning, the "code" quoted was actually from the definitions (656.1601) and is as follows:
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.
To quote Wilson: "No unrelated people may live together as a family unit in a single family dwelling."
This means unmarried couples, gay couples, friends sharing a house, the list goes on....
OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?
Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)
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.
sheclown..........based on that, and a triplex involved, 15 people could live there! I wonder if Louise has been at it again? This is just down her path! Lunacity, 1st meet with most lawyers is free, they only charge from then on!
lunacity.............It just occured to me..........all five are servants, therefore excluded!
Already contacted the attorney.
SPAR thinks they can bully us, but we won't back down! These people have rights and we will fight for them! We didn't back down during the historic overlay and we won't back down now. Don't we already have a homeless problem in this city?
Quote from: uptowngirl on January 07, 2010, 07:04:25 PM
OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?
Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)
I think perhaps you are confused (or we are both confused…who knows!) This is not talking about more than five unrelated adults and never was. It is now talking about any at all. In other words, two, three, four or five no longer matters, if you are not related by blood, adoption, law or marriage, it is now not considered legal to live together in a single family home because someone at Code Enforcement, and/or Zoning and/ or the Office of General Council has decided so. No law change, no discussion with the residents of Jacksonville, a few paid employees just decided that Louise and Company had the right idea. Just a note, this code is far from new and this is a brand new interpretation, having been previously interpeted to mean 5 or fewer unrelated adults may indeed share a single family home. Not just by us, but by the Office of General Council and Code Enforcement within the last 6 months.
By and by, gay couples can not marry in Florida, so they would be excluded from that marriage protection. As would those college students sharing a house, the young school teachers pooling their resources and yes, a few good men working on their sobriety together.
Gloria did ask if an unmarried couple was a problem and was told probably not. And the probably not really means that as long as you are liked, it might be OK, but if someone complains…. So this makes this affair the exact same thing as when SPAR Council’s President said it was probably OK for an illegal rooming house to rent rooms as long as it was to those nice proton therapy patients. Come on, is this the Jacksonville we really want?
Quote from: strider on January 07, 2010, 08:35:30 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on January 07, 2010, 07:04:25 PM
OMG! How many people make up a couple? Is being part of a gay marriage different from a "straight marriage"? are there five or more people involved in this type of arrangement? What about unmarried couples?
Does not the word couple imply less than five people involved? Can we not confuse the issue here, again, please '-)
I think perhaps you are confused (or we are both confused…who knows!) This is not talking about more than five unrelated adults and never was. It is now talking about any at all. In other words, two, three, four or five no longer matters, if you are not related by blood, adoption, law or marriage, it is now not considered legal to live together in a single family home because someone at Code Enforcement, and/or Zoning and/ or the Office of General Council has decided so. No law change, no discussion with the residents of Jacksonville, a few paid employees just decided that Louise and Company had the right idea. Just a note, this code is far from new and this is a brand new interpretation, having been previously interpeted to mean 5 or fewer unrelated adults may indeed share a single family home. Not just by us, but by the Office of General Council and Code Enforcement within the last 6 months.
By and by, gay couples can not marry in Florida, so they would be excluded from that marriage protection. As would those college students sharing a house, the young school teachers pooling their resources and yes, a few good men working on their sobriety together.
Gloria did ask if an unmarried couple was a problem and was told probably not. And the probably not really means that as long as you are liked, it might be OK, but if someone complains…. So this makes this affair the exact same thing as when SPAR Council’s President said it was probably OK for an illegal rooming house to rent rooms as long as it was to those nice proton therapy patients. Come on, is this the Jacksonville we really want?
Is this in writing? If so this is an issue for the city! I would think stating unrelated couples living together would be illegal period, but there is a difference between a couple or two roomates and five or more people living together. The way i read the previous post made me think the city only referenced over five unrelated people.
Quote from: stephendare on January 07, 2010, 09:02:47 PM
Sheclown, is there any truth to the rumor that there is an anti SPAR demonstration being planned for the Celebrate Springfield event?
Why ruin a Springfield day because some hate SPAR? Seems like that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water?
Quote from: uptowngirl on January 07, 2010, 09:12:54 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 07, 2010, 09:02:47 PM
Sheclown, is there any truth to the rumor that there is an anti SPAR demonstration being planned for the Celebrate Springfield event?
Why ruin a Springfield day because some hate SPAR? Seems like that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water?
That depends, is the baby related to anyone in the house? ;)
if the baby is a servant,,,,,,,then they should not count right? COJ is enforcing this huh............I guess someone did not get paid off on time or else GC is starting to campaign ahead of time.......need to get a jump on the compitetion ya know!
Part of 656.1601 was not quoted. It may also be relevant to the discussion.
QuoteFamily 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.
This will be an interesting case because although the definition of a family is at the heart of it, much like the supreme court case Oxford House v. city of Edmondson, we are not asking for reasonable accommodation to EXPAND the definition of a family, but rather, we just are demanding that the city offer fair and equitable treatment and not discriminate against people in recovery.
COJ is in a tough spot because it is easily proven by emails, community meetings and etc, that neighborhood pressure is bringing them to this point.
Nice try, but the reason it wasn't quoted is that even code enforcement can not define us as any of those. The office of General Council conceded to that long ago. There are established definitions of each already, but of course that could change as this is a brand new interpretation of an old and established code.
From what I have been told, code enforcement officers did not even try to define Ms. Luna's places as anything but illegal rooming houses and then only in terms of unrelated adults. Rather than use any real facts, they have changed the meaning of words, as in, no, five doesn't mean five, and they also have pointed to:
Dwelling, one-family or single-family means a building containing only one dwelling unit. The term is not to be construed as including recreational vehicles, tents, houseboats or other forms of temporary or portable house. Manufactured homes and modular homes which comply with the provisions of Subpart C, Part 4 of the Zoning Code are considered single-family dwellings. For the purposes of this Zoning Code, row houses, townhouses, condominiums, cooperative apartments or other form of dwelling units which are not in individual detached buildings meeting all the requirements of a single-family dwelling shall not be construed to be single-family dwellings. A building in which a room or other portion is rented to or occupied by someone other than a part of the family shall not be considered to be a single-family dwelling.
Dwelling unit means a room or rooms connected together constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for a family, for owner occupancy or for rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, physically separated from other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure and containing sleeping facilities and one kitchen.
Pointing to the italicized phrase stating that as a family (now) can only be related by blood, marriage, ETC., then only one “unrelated†adult may live in a single family dwelling and if he shares expenses with another “unrelated†adult, then the dwelling is no longer a single family dwelling and is therefore a rooming house and not legal. By using this line of thought, any gay or even straight couples living in a single family dwelling are now running an illegal rooming house and need to be cited and fined for it!
Way to go Code Enforcement!
"...and what experience would that be?"
=) i've been to court many a time.
Also, noone has to worry about this except for boarding/rehab houses. This is what this issue is about. Fear mongering that "they'll come after you next!" is logical for you, Gloria, to gain support.......but not realistic at all.
Anyways. This issue has been debated and discussed to death on this and other forums.
I would like to see it make it to the Florida Supreme Court though. That'd be cool, huh.
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.
I'd say that anyone who thinks otherwise is fear mongering, as this is what it's specifically aimed at.
I personally believe the bottom line difference is, one is a business, and specifically enumerated in the list of exclusions from the definition of family (or so it seems to me), and the others (teachers, college students, gay couple) are not.
Personally, Im just glad the issue will finally be put to bed. Im just tired of all of the hand wringing, and fear mongering in both directions. (Gays will be killed on sight/Our homes will be invaded by drunken murderers)
"...one is a business, and specifically enumerated in the list of exclusions from the definition pf family (or so it seems to me), and the others (teachers, college students, gay couple) are not...."
- wow. never thought of it that way before. that does make sense, at least on the surface.
Seems to me, COJ could cap the number of people who live in a house IF they capped it across the board, related or non-related. COJ is allowed to put in number restrictions, but not to define what is a family according to this Supreme Court Case because Fair Housing Act comes into play.
http://movabletypo.net/horizonline/2005/03/city_of_edmonds.html
Gloria, I just read your case. Im not a brillian legal mind, like "certain other posters", but it seems to me, that they didnt address the issue of family. In fact, they went out of thier way to state
QuoteEdmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a "family" is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under §3607(b)(1). It remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions against Oxford House violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set out in §§3604(f)(1)(A) and (f)(3)(B)
and further
QuoteLike the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, we do not decide whether Edmonds' zoning code provision defining "family," as the City would apply it against Oxford House, violates the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set out in 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(1)(A) and (f)(3)(B).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-23.ZO.html
They simply reaffirmed the 9th Circuits decision, which relates to the zoning restrictions for single family zones under the FHA guidelines.
What was the lower courts ruling on this issue?
So, the basic arguement here is five unrelated males living together in a house with no intention of making it a perm situation is the same thing as a family? Or is the argument they ARE planning to make this a perm situation, and in that case, is that really then a rehab situation? I am not sure you can have it both ways?
Are the three separate units within this house individually metered? If so, how is this any different than all of the other single houses divided into multiple rentable units? It sounds to me like someone nearby has an issue with what you are doing and not the law. Also it sounds like they have a connection within city hall and are getting a weak zoning interpretation and inside help in an attempt to bully you out of "their" neighborhood. I think you could easily win this argument/fight with a good landuse/real estate attorney. I would imagine that there are a few good ones in town that would take your case on as pro bono.
Fight it, and win it for the little guy and all of humanity.
I am still confused as to who sicked Code Enforcement on that situation. If the GC's office is making a determination based on their interpretation of the laws regarding what constitutes a "Family Unit", this should make great commentary and enlightening discussion! I hope Mr Mullaney is not prepping for his run for Mayor? I don't think this is something he should be making a statement on because we have far more reaching and important issue's to contend with...........like no vision, no plans and a budget shortfall next cycle of about $40 Million Dollars! Those numbers were the last ones running around.........but we have $23 Million Dollars to do things that should have been done long before now!
Quote from: JaxNative68 on January 08, 2010, 11:48:35 AM
Are the three separate units within this house individually metered? If so, how is this any different than all of the other single houses divided into multiple rentable units? It sounds to me like someone nearby has an issue with what you are doing and not the law. Also it sounds like they have a connection within city hall and are getting a weak zoning interpretation and inside help in an attempt to bully you out of "their" neighborhood. I think you could easily win this argument/fight with a good landuse/real estate attorney. I would imagine that there are a few good ones in town that would take your case on as pro bono.
Fight it, and win it for the little guy and all of humanity.
This is the eventual aftermath of the rooming house issue from a couple of years ago.
I still think the $62+ million that were pissed away on the first two courthouse designs would have covered $40 million shortfall.
JaxNative68 ......you hit the nail right on the head! Stop and think about all the incentive money and grants that the current Administration has passed out since coming into power.............that much and then some! Certain persons got paid off of the top, consulting and advising yada yada......and the taxpayer has gotten the short end of the stick!
Are the three separate units within this house individually metered? If so, how is this any different than all of the other single houses divided into multiple rentable units? It sounds to me like someone nearby has an issue with what you are doing and not the law. Also it sounds like they have a connection within city hall and are getting a weak zoning interpretation and inside help in an attempt to bully you out of "their" neighborhood. I think you could easily win this argument/fight with a good landuse/real estate attorney. I would imagine that there are a few good ones in town that would take your case on as pro bono.
Fight it, and win it for the little guy and all of humanity.
Yes, the triplex has 3 meters, 3 kitchens, 3 bathrooms, 3 a/c units!
Please dont take this as anything other than an honest question. Are you putting 4 or 5 guys per unit? Speaking from first person, if i had 15 single recovering males living next to me I might be a little nervous (keeping in mind, I have two daughters).
you are a man, are you not to be trusted around little girls either? geez.
Why does this discussion have to turn to this????
Do you profess to know the follys and foibles of all of the men whom you have dealt with that have hit rock bottom?
The reason I mention that I have daughters is more to show why I may feel the hesitation that I do... I wasnt trying to say she is putting up 15 pedophiles, or even trying to divert the conversation. I was just asking if she was putting 5 dudes in each unit. As I stated, it was an honest question, and not meant to be loaded.
Okay let's move on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas
Reasoning
(1) Because there is no protected class discrimination, and no fundamental right infringed by the ordinance, the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. (2) Determining what constitutes a family is the proper role of the legislature, not the judiciary, as long as there exists a rational basis for the legislature's determination. (3) The ordinance does not restrict the freedom of association, as homeowners may entertain whomever it wants. (4) The city has a rational basis for its prohibition on housing large numbers of unrelated individuals because such individuals generate more traffic, cars, and noise than a family.
So, COJ may define a family as long as it is not a basis for protected class discrimination. As I read this...
http://www.oxfordhouse.org/userfiles/file/ohrol.php
Quote from: sheclown on January 08, 2010, 01:54:15 PM
Okay let's move on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas
Reasoning
(1) Because there is no protected class discrimination, and no fundamental right infringed by the ordinance, the proper standard of review is the rational basis test. (2) Determining what constitutes a family is the proper role of the legislature, not the judiciary, as long as there exists a rational basis for the legislature's determination. (3) The ordinance does not restrict the freedom of association, as homeowners may entertain whomever it wants. (4) The city has a rational basis for its prohibition on housing large numbers of unrelated individuals because such individuals generate more traffic, cars, and noise than a family.
So, COJ may define a family as long as it is not a basis for protected class discrimination. As I read this...
Protected class being based on the gender, race, or religion of the individuals? Has that ever come up in this issue?
QuoteDefinition of Disability: Federal laws define a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment."
In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself.
HUD's definition
A plaintiff may establish a violation of either the FHA or ADA under three separate theories:
(1) intentional discrimination, (2) disparate impact, or (3) failure to make a reasonable
accommodation.
I think (1) and (2) applies. Perhaps (3) as well.
Quotestrider: 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.
QuoteFSU813: 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?â€
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?
Dan B: As to worries about your daughters because someone may be in recovery next door, or even 15 guys, I think you should worry more about that relative or close, personal friend of the families. Those seem to be where problems often come from. Oh, and don’t go outside anymore ever, it might be dangerous. To do anything less would be professing “to know the follys and foibles of allâ€.
The point is, the fear you expressed is common and just that, fear. To the point that it is prejudicial.
Uptowngirl: You can not use the argument about a family being permanent unless you wish to do away with divorce. No family can be assumed to be permanent. All that can be assumed is intent. If the intent of five unrelated guys to live together as a family unit, then it is a family under the code as previously always defined and interpreted.
You also need to keep in mind that activities like eating together, watching TV together and even cooking together can not be regulated to determine whether anyone is living together as a family unit unless you can prove it is always done when families are related by blood. We all know they aren't. So, the only means to regulate that is to insure the dwelling unit be such that the family unit can do those things together if they wish, which is whay the dwelling unit definition is written as it is.
When looking at what must be done to provide reasonable accommodations to a protected class like the physically disabled, you must provide more than equal. Say we look at an office building being built that has ten steps up to it. The steps provided are the equal accommodation. All must go up ten steps to enter. However, the ADA says that you must provide the ability of those disabled to enter as well, so the extra accommodation is the ramp and insuring the door way is wide enough. This could apply here as the reasonable accommodation is to allow us the five as it was previously an excepted number. Of course, that would still leave the gay community and those unmarried living together potentially literally out in the cold.
Quote from: strider on January 08, 2010, 05:01:50 PM
Dan B: As to worries about your daughters because someone may be in recovery next door, or even 15 guys, I think you should worry more about that relative or close, personal friend of the families. Those seem to be where problems often come from. Oh, and don’t go outside anymore ever, it might be dangerous. To do anything less would be professing “to know the follys and foibles of all”.
The point is, the fear you expressed is common and just that, fear. To the point that it is prejudicial.
Uptowngirl: You can not use the argument about a family being permanent unless you wish to do away with divorce. No family can be assumed to be permanent. All that can be assumed is intent. If the intent of five unrelated guys to live together as a family unit, then it is a family under the code as previously always defined and interpreted.
You also need to keep in mind that activities like eating together, watching TV together and even cooking together can not be regulated to determine whether anyone is living together as a family unit unless you can prove it is always done when families are related by blood. We all know they aren't. So, the only means to regulate that is to insure the dwelling unit be such that the family unit can do those things together if they wish, which is whay the dwelling unit definition is written as it is.
When looking at what must be done to provide reasonable accommodations to a protected class like the physically disabled, you must provide more than equal. Say we look at an office building being built that has ten steps up to it. The steps provided are the equal accommodation. All must go up ten steps to enter. However, the ADA says that you must provide the ability of those disabled to enter as well, so the extra accommodation is the ramp and insuring the door way is wide enough. This could apply here as the reasonable accommodation is to allow us the five as it was previously an excepted number. Of course, that would still leave the gay community and those unmarried living together potentially literally out in the cold.
Ahhh I did not understand we were speaking of physically disabled adult males livign together, I thought we were talking about sober houses. Sober houses would imply drug addiction or alcoholism, which is very different. But I still think the code posted is specific to five or more, and again, I believe there is no intention of these men living together as a family for long term. With a marriage or couple moving in together the intent is long term, it may not work out, but the intent is there.
I keep coming back to who complained to Code? If the GC made this determination based on current law, someone is pushing for no reason at all other than just trying to be a pain in the butt! No reason for this to be taking place..........I guess SPAR will be making a poster to inform the neighborhood against this also!
stephendare..........I'm deadly serious about forming an alternate association! You and I both know that there is no substitute for numbers and letting SPAR die a slow death. Renewals for SPAR are slacking off and the membership numbers are declining and no one appears to question just why? I don't care what kinda of inroads that SPAR has ...............force them to die off by bringing an alternative into life and go from there!
I vote for the Women's Club running the neighborhood.
I vote that the neighborhood runs the neighborhood if there is an issue vote on it
that would be awesome
QuoteUptownngirl:Ahhh I did not understand we were speaking of physically disabled adult males livign together, I thought we were talking about sober houses. Sober houses would imply drug addiction or alcoholism, which is very different. But I still think the code posted is specific to five or more, and again, I believe there is no intention of these men living together as a family for long term. With a marriage or couple moving in together the intent is long term, it ma y not work out, but the intent is there.
Unfortunately for you then, under the eyes of the law, men and women in recovery from drug abuse and the effects of alcoholism are indeed treated the same as and are entitled to the very same protections and rights as that physically disabled person. Under federal laws, they are not any different.
The code posted was not specific to five or more as all the single family homes in question have five or less. Long term, as defined by most, would imply six months? A year? The truth is, "long term" or not does not enter into the family issue, but is covered by other laws and applies to married couple and everyone else.
As to what if the intent of these men living together as a family unit, sorry, but I have seen real Christmas trees, stockings on the mantle, guys sharing the cooking chores....seems like more of a family than many of the related by blood "families" I know. Your opinion is wrong.
Back to the blatant discrimination against the homeless, disabled, sick, veterans, or throw away 's of society.
Forget SPAR, at least for the issue at hand and put on you "alternative" thinking cap, get out of your box... For example:
A small fee at the courthouse and everybody that comes through that door is a LEGAL brother... Tell em to stick that in their pipe and smoke it.
Tweak your non-profit status and found "The Church of Springfield," a religious order that believes in the brotherhood of all of mankind. "Hello, ACLU? Have I got a deal for you!"
Go out to FSCJ, UNF, JU etc. and get a couple of humanities professors to spread your assemblage message across the campus, be SURE that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX are all there for the protest.
Write your story down and get it out to a few magazines that deal with benevolence. Trust me, they are ALWAYS looking for story's in specialty publications. Watch the fireworks start when the magazine hits the stands.
Go toss yourself on the steps of Folio, Buzz, EU or even the TU, you'd be amazed at how hungry this city is for REAL story's.
Link up with a local church, priest, wait until JAX tries to take on The Catholic or Lutheran Charities. Want to REALLY scare the big shots go talk to Mac down at FBC.
There are always VETERANS groups waiting to go to war for our brother veterans, everything from the Sons of Confederate Veterans, to the VFW, Fleet Reserve, DAV, Amvets. THE LAST thing this city wants in a hearing is a room full of OCKLAWAHA'S from Nam.
SEE? There are ways to win your fight, and there are ways to win the fight for EVERYONE and kick the hell out of the abusers. It's not revenge we want, we are seeking a Reckoning. "Don't seek Victory - Force Change!"
OCKLAWAHA
Your friendly happy hippie
at your radical service...
Quote from: Dan B on January 08, 2010, 01:28:27 PM
Please dont take this as anything other than an honest question. Are you putting 4 or 5 guys per unit? Speaking from first person, if i had 15 single recovering males living next to me I might be a little nervous (keeping in mind, I have two daughters).
Actually, the triplex houses women and no I don't have 5 in each unit it's actually less. Futher, when I do have men I always do a background check first and foremost checking to see if they are a sex offender.
Cool, Thanks for the info Luna.
So this has become a Springfield thread, perhaps it should be renamed and moved to Springfield. I do not know of the same issue anywhere else in the City.
This is not about the overlay, this is about the code. What happens to these sober houses, will happen to sober houses throughout the city. 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?
If not, then it is aimed solely at people in recovery. (Even better for proving discrimination).
Let's talk about "making a federal case about it." Sarasota County had to pay $750k to a halfway house a couple of years back. Daytona Beach as well. Angi and friends will be heading to federal court over this. Additionally, even if Angi & friends choose not to hire an attorney (an unlikely scenario) , the justice department will come out of Washington to sue COJ at no charge to Angie & friends at all. How do I know this? Because I have already had correspondence with HUD.
Do the residents of Jax want to give up taxpayers' money to fight a losing battle?
This is why it is not in the Springfield section.
And it is not just the sober houses. If Code Enforcement/ City of Jacksonville has it's way, anytime a nieghbor does not like that gay couple buying or renting that house next door, this can be used against them. It is indeed an issue everyone in Jacksonville should be concerned with.
Quote from: strider on January 09, 2010, 11:33:05 AM
And it is not just the sober houses. If Code Enforcement/ City of Jacksonville has it's way, anytime a nieghbor does not like that gay couple buying or renting that house next door, this can be used against them. It is indeed an issue everyone in Jacksonville should be concerned with.
And you call me concerns about having 15 unattached recovering males living next to me my daughters alarmist, yet you have a scenario in which gay couples are being hunted down. Dude. Get a grip!
Quote from: Dan B on January 09, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: strider on January 09, 2010, 11:33:05 AM
And it is not just the sober houses. If Code Enforcement/ City of Jacksonville has it's way, anytime a nieghbor does not like that gay couple buying or renting that house next door, this can be used against them. It is indeed an issue everyone in Jacksonville should be concerned with.
And you call me concerns about having 15 unattached recovering males living next to me my daughters alarmist, yet you have a scenario in which gay couples are being hunted down. Dude. Get a grip!
The difference DAN, is that what I am saying is based an Code Enforcement's interpetation of a LAW, what you said was based on your personal opinion and fears. Perhaps you should "Get a grip". Or just do some research about this subject. Do some reading about the history of little laws like this and how they are applied at first and how they end up being applied later. It might just "alarm" you, "Dude".
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!
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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
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!
"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.
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?
"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.
Quote"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?
Quote"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?
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.
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!"
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?
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.
Quote from: strider on January 08, 2010, 04:55:42 PM
Quotestrider: 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.
QuoteFSU813: 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?â€
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
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.
Quote from: strider on January 11, 2010, 01:00:18 PM
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?
Reductio ad Hitlerum I like it, will definitely remember that one.
Quote from: CityLife on January 11, 2010, 01:52:01 PM
Quote from: strider on January 11, 2010, 01:00:18 PM
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!
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.
QuotePart 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.
Quote from: strider on January 12, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
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.
Quote from: AlexS on January 12, 2010, 09:50:24 AM
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?
QuoteNow 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?
Hey...is this where Strider is handing out apologies? I'd like one too!
(that whole dirty socks episode).
Quote from: strider on January 12, 2010, 05:37:01 PM
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.
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.
I pulled this from the thread entitled "What is a Sober House". It seems relevant to this latest development.
QuoteFor 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
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.
I've had my own troubles with code enforcement and someone in the neighborhood calling in complaining.
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.
How exactly does rezoning from five unrelated people to three unrelated people per dwelling affect gay relationships? If a gay couple are together and there are say two children of one person but not legally in Florida related to the gay/lesbian partner then three of the four people are legally related under Florida law so how exactly would that come in this case?
Unless you're talking about gay Mormons who believe in Mormon values of muliple spouses?!? (only half kidding)
Seriously, this does not appear to be a gay issue.
Florida will probably be one of the last states to legalize gay marriage before the Supreme Court does but once that happens then this kind of law could not affect gay relationships.
People seem to romanticize multiple roommate living. If it was that easy for muliple people to live together without having a dominant person who's in charge then usually infight occures; always somebody who seems to be late on the rent or eat all of the Frosted Flakes or invites a person over for a sexual encounter and that person takes something during their pre-dawn walk of shame not to mention the usual roommate problems.
I'd say, if it works for you, FABULOUS, though, anybody living in the clouds or dumb enough to live with multiple roommates should do as they please but not on my block, that kind of exciting drama is best suited for condos off of Southside Blvd :-)
A couple, even a same sex couple, not legally married that has two or more children will not legally be able to reside in any single family home in Jacksonville. Period. The way the law is written, this will apply even if you own your own home.
The law states that unless ALL persons are related by blood marriage or adoption, the maxiumum of persons allowed in a single fmailty home is 5, which they want to be three. All. That means when one person is not related in those ways, even when three of the four are, you can not exceed that 5 to 3 person limit. This is how the Zoning head explained it on the meeting. His reference was at first, 5 married couples could now live in a single family home as five were related to one another. He then came back and said no, he was wrong, the law is ALL therefore all in a single family must be related to have more than 5 persons in a single family home, now to go to 3 persons. So his example was 2.5 married couples could live together, not 5.
The existing law limits the number to 5 unrelated persons and the same applies, it is just unusual to get an unmarried couple with more that three kids. It is more likely to be an issue when the total number allowed is suddenly three, meaning only one child.
When you look at other cases of unrelated adults living together in a roommate situation, you may be surprised that some actually prefer it. Rather than being completely alone, a roommate gives you the opportunity to interact with others when you want to or not and be alone in your own room. I suspect this is more common among the disabled and disadvantaged than anywhere else except for college students and the younger among us who may be struggling financially while trying to build careers.
In any case, this is just something not needed for any good reason and one that will most likely fail to accomplish what the few want and yet has a lot of potential for doing harm to this city.
I will say that we live in a normal, middle class suburban neighborhood off San Jose Blvd. One home in the neighborhood was purchased by investors on a short sale. They've rented it to four in their early-mid 20s, which usually means about six or seven cars with their girlfriends. 2 a.m. parties, beer bottles in neighbors yards, etc. are not uncommon.
It's about a block from me, but the people next door to it have had lots of problems. Now, the house across the street has been bought and if it turns into a similar situation, it's really going to suck.
Quote from: river4340 on June 09, 2014, 04:16:45 PM
I will say that we live in a normal, middle class suburban neighborhood off San Jose Blvd. One home in the neighborhood was purchased by investors on a short sale. They've rented it to four in their early-mid 20s, which usually means about six or seven cars with their girlfriends. 2 a.m. parties, beer bottles in neighbors yards, etc. are not uncommon.
It's about a block from me, but the people next door to it have had lots of problems. Now, the house across the street has been bought and if it turns into a similar situation, it's really going to suck.
This is not fixable by changing an ordinance now is it? You can not control how good of a neighbor you are going to get by changing how many unrelated persons may live in a single family house. You can't control how well behaved an owner and family is going to be anymore than you can control how good of a neighbor a renter is going to be. In your case, one less person would make a difference how?
The five to three is being done in an attempt at making it less financially feasible to rent that house in that manor. The poor will have to move because they can not afford the higher rent required by less sharing the expense. So a great way to help gentrify the community and move out those pesky poor folk. And in this case, they are also trying to move out the sober houses but that won't work too well as, well, they will find out soon enough.
QuoteNewport Beach settles legal battle over sober-living homes
July 15, 2015
Updated July 16, 2015 7:58 a.m.
BY MEGAN NICOLAI / STAFF WRITER
Newport Beach has reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement announced Tuesday.
City attorney Aaron Harp said Newport Beach settled lawsuits with Pacific Shores Properties, Newport Coast Recovery and Yellowstone Women's First Step House, for a total of $5.25 million.
The city spent at least $4 million in legal proceedings on the cases, according to Register archives.
Steven Polin, attorney for the group-home operators, said his clients were more interested in ending the proceedings than battling in court.
"Everybody took into account the calculus – a trial could have taken another two to four years," Polin said. "My clients are satisfied with this."
The lawsuits stemmed from an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts – establishing quiet hours, parking and smoking areas and van routes. The ordinance, still in place today, requires the city's approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods.
The three companies sued the city over the ordinance, saying it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws, since individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group.
After a federal judge ruled that the group homes could not sue the city in 2011, the case went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court's majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.
The city asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the court declined.
According to the city, the city had 25 sober-living and recovery facilities as of February – 15 licensed by the state's Department of Healthcare Services (formerly by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs) and 10 without state licenses. There were an estimated 86 facilities in 2007, according to the city.
Licensed facilities can provide alcohol or drug detoxification or recovery treatment planning. But a facility doesn't require a license if it's licensed by another state agency such as the Department of Public Health.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7990 or mnicolai@ocregister.com