SPAR Tries to Pass Law to Ban Non Family Members from Living Together.

[sheclown]

As it is currently stated by law, you could move 45 of your closest relatives into your home, but not your friends.  Only four friends could move in.

[iluvolives]

I realize that- the question was- is there no reasonable number that should be set on the number of non family members in a single family home? Or is any limit prejudice and targeted at the poor?

[sheclown]

I realize that- the question was- is there no reasonable number that should be set on the number of non family members in a single family home? Or is any limit prejudice and targeted at the poor?

I think that the law, as it now stands at five, is totally acceptable.

[iluvolives]

Then what happens to StephenDare's three gay couples living in a victorian?

[sheclown]

One person is currently living there illegally.  

[iluvolives]

Exactly, that is why the title of this post and the 11 pages of discussion attacking SPAR for a regulation that already exists seems irrelevant. If someone has issue with the current regulations they should address it with the City. The title of this post misleads people to believe that these regulations are not currently in place.

[sheclown]

Stephen is right.  This is problematic on so many levels.  Legal if related, illegal if not related, problem one.  The magic number is a problem, who is enforcing this?  What training will they have?  Who can do this?  Is it "complaint driven" enforcement?  If so, what is to prevent misuse?  What constitutes "living" there?  Is a one-night stand a problem?  A visitor for a week?  A month?  Six months?

[braeburn]

The whole historic district now sounds like some tragic nazi homeowner or condo association. My aunt from Miami had to do a background check to stay 3 weeks in my apartment. lol...

[Springfield Girl]

This whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws. I live next to a duplex that has three bedrooms to a unit. We had 6, 20 somethings living there for years, 3 to a unit. These were kids but they managed to pay their rent and live comfortably 1 to a room. They had parties and played their music but they also went to work everyday or night and were good neighbors. I didn't care if they had friends spend the night because it was a temporary thing and there were never issues that come with overcrowding. When they moved out due to the landlord not making needed repairs a new group moved in. This group consisted of friends and family in both units and was a nightmare! They kept pitbulls in cages on the balcony and ran a babysitting operation. One man went to work and every other adult sat around all day and night drinking, cussing, smoking pot, yelling, taunting dogs and neglecting children. One middle school age boy routinely did not attend school and the dogs were left without food and water all day in cages in the heat only to be let out to run the block at 9 pm. ALL the neighbors called animal control and child services which would lead to nothing but these neighbors harrassing us. Several of the neighbors contacted the owner but nothing changed. I documented everything and as a last recourse I sent the owner documentation of events and let him know that this was his final warning of the danger these tenents and their dogs posed to us and that we would take legal action against him if we were harmed. This did the trick and he finally evicted them. He has not been able to rent the property since due the the trashing these folks did to the place. My point is, no one is going to complain about nice quiet neighbors who keep their property up no matter who they are. It is the bad apple tenents or owners that cause the problem and becuse they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

[sheclown]

This whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws. I live next to a duplex that has three bedrooms to a unit. We had 6, 20 somethings living there for years, 3 to a unit. These were kids but they managed to pay their rent and live comfortably 1 to a room. They had parties and played their music but they also went to work everyday or night and were good neighbors. I didn't care if they had friends spend the night because it was a temporary thing and there were never issues that come with overcrowding. When they moved out due to the landlord not making needed repairs a new group moved in. This group consisted of friends and family in both units and was a nightmare! They kept pitbulls in cages on the balcony and ran a babysitting operation. One man went to work and every other adult sat around all day and night drinking, cussing, smoking pot, yelling, taunting dogs and neglecting children. One middle school age boy routinely did not attend school and the dogs were left without food and water all day in cages in the heat only to be let out to run the block at 9 pm. ALL the neighbors called animal control and child services which would lead to nothing but these neighbors harrassing us. Several of the neighbors contacted the owner but nothing changed. I documented everything and as a last recourse I sent the owner documentation of events and let him know that this was his final warning of the danger these tenents and their dogs posed to us and that we would take legal action against him if we were harmed. This did the trick and he finally evicted them. He has not been able to rent the property since due the the trashing these folks did to the place. My point is, no one is going to complain about nice quiet neighbors who keep their property up no matter who they are. It is the bad apple tenents or owners that cause the problem and becuse they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

...have you ever lived in a city before, Springfield Girl?

[strider]

Springfield Girl, the biggest problem with your argument is that changing these laws will not help those bad situations one bit. Whether the laws says five unrelated adults or just three (as I suspect the coming proposed ordinance will read, among other things…), you can and will still have bad renters that cause you problems.  This law is not the cure all for controlling if the next renters next to you will be great neighbors or the horrors of your worst nightmare.  And what will you try next when you find out that instead of just three unrelated people, a blood related family of eight moves in next to you and are a problem neighbor?  Try to get a law passed that says you can not be a family and live in a single family house if you have more than two kids? How long before you want to perform a background check and get a financial statement from anyone who wants to live in Springfield? Of course, even if you could do that, it would not guarantee you a good neighbor.

[Springfield Girl]

None of the above, I didn't say anything about changing the law. Just enforce laws already on the books that keep people behaving decently. As I stated above, the city departments that should have done something about our neighbors (code enforcement, animal care, child services) didn't enforce any of the many laws being broken and only my threat of legal action forced the owner into action. Yes, I have lived in cities much larger than Jacksonville and never have I dealt with such rude, irresponsible people. I lived in New Orleans for 20 years and never had a single thing stolen but I have been a victim of theft in every area of Jacksonville I have lived in. It seems like people here have such an entitlement attitude. Everyone owes them, whether it be government, charity or just an individual that happens to have more than they do. I don't know if it is the education level, contamination issues or what but people seem to have serious issues here. Some people are trying to make this an economic issue by saying that Springfield doesn't want poor people here. I don't care how much money you have and I don't think money has anything to do with sweeping your porch or picking up trash on your property. My attitude is, be responsible, take care of your sh*t, don't force your lifestyle down my throat and we'll get along fine.

[strider]

Ok, Springfield Girl, I'm really confused.  From your first post, you say:

This whole thing is ridiculous. The reason we have to discuss this issue in the first place is because there are unscrupulous, uncaring people who don't care about their neighbors and abuse zoning laws.
And:
It is the bad apple tenants or owners that cause the problem and because they fail to use common sense courtesy we need laws to ensure they do not disrupt the rest of us . 

Which, partly due to what a few others have told me about conversations you've had with them, I took it as you are agreeing with the rest of your SPAR Council Board and are pursuing this proposed law change through Dr. Gaffney.

Now you say:

None of the above, I didn't say anything about changing the law. Just enforce laws already on the books that keep people behaving decently.

So does that mean that you are not going to support the law that Dr. Gaffney is having Shannon Eller draft up on SPAR Councils request and so will not be going downtown to speak for it or are you saying that we are wrong and that there is no such law being drafted, even though we have the E-mails and verbal confirmation that it is indeed being drafted? 

[Springfield Girl]

I'm saying I don't know anything about any so called new legislation but do support laws and the intention of laws already on the books. I would have to be educated on any issue before I could support or oppose it. The city does a poor job of enforcing existing laws whether it be zoning, preservation or any other issue and that is a problem. I agree with what Dan has said in the past that just because someone can find a way around a law or use conflicting interpretations to further their business endeavors or personal mission does not mean they should. Joe, you love to bash and damn everyone (developers, SPAR, residents of Springfield)for their views that you do not support while belittling our views and concerns about your mission to bring recovering addicts en masse into the neighborhood we live in. You have a mission that you believe in but that does not make your mission, business or rights any more important than ours. We are homeowners that live here with our families, though you have less concern for our feelings than you do for recovering addicts that are paying your mortgages while just passing through the neighborhood. You do not care about our concerns but demand that we care about yours. It doesn't work that way and doesn't garner any support for your cause. I get that you FEEL you have been unfairly attacked by a FEW but how does going against the wishes of so many neighbors correct that. You have stated on several occasions that SPAR just cares about winning a perceived battle with you but I see it the other way. You will damn the whole neighborhood and spite us by forcing your mission and business down our throats because of some vendetta against SPAR. SPAR is not hurt by having multiple halfway houses/boarding houses/quasi halfwayhouses or detox centers in the neighborhood. The ones hurt are the families who chose to put down roots here and invest their money to rehab a home and bring this historic neighborhood back from the dregs and despair it had been reduced to. In the end if winning makes you feel good in spite of hurting the families and full time residents of Springfield you will only deserve our contempt.

[sheclown]

How does having people in recovery hurt a neighborhood?  I really don't get that.  But it really doesn't matter.

Many of our men have lived in Springfield for decades.  If they are "passing through", they are not doing a very good job of it.  Again, it really doesn't matter.

What does matter is ...the Fair Housing Act makes is a violation of federal law to discriminate against people who are in recovery.  That means, no city, neighborhood, or state regulations can zone out a group of people, or even limit the number of disabled people in a neighborhood.