What are the characteristics of a rooming house/halfway house ?

[sheclown]

Wow.  This stuff truly is addictive.  Don't miss your flight!

[strider]

Alex, I have made a few comments on both of our answers.  Looking forward to your comments - and any others who may join in - when you can.  joe

Do you think this building is a rooming house/halfway house because this is what the renters or potential renters refer to it?

Yes. If the law doesn't see it as what it's really used for, then the intent of the law is missed or it is being circumvented

.

I disagree in part because I know that if someone knows a house as a crack house, they often still call it that even after the house has gone from a crack house, to condemned, to restored single family again.  In addition, ones definition of what a house is maybe the same word but different meanings. So, while I can see your point in that what someone calls a house can be used to further investigate, this can not be used as a legal determination. 

Should anyone question the legitimacy of such a place?

Yes. Otherwise what good does it do to have a law on the books which is intended to prevent additional special use facilities. As long as the house does not draw attention it will probably stay under the radar and not be reported.

Being familiar with the law and knowing the laws are often two different things.  Going back to your first question, just calling a house a “special use” does not make it so.  Other wise, are we not sort of saying the same thing:  I think first one needs to ask themselves the question, is this house posing a problem for me? Are they good or bad neighbors? In other words, each individual should make this decision for themselves. Like in any situation involving neighbors, the owner should be approached first. If that does not satisfy your issues, then your options are the DBPR or the COJ code enforcement.

How should one go about checking compliance with existing zoning overlay?

Report it through the complaint based system and allow the city to do it’s job. It probably would be helpful if inspectors could perform an unannounced inspection (similar to how restaurants are inspected). Otherwise things can be made look proper for the inspector ahead of the visit.

We actually agreed here.  Inspectors from code enforcement do indeed do unannounced inspections. Renters mostly will not allow an inspector in without the owner of the building  being present. The difference between this complaint driven inspection on a house and a restraunts inspection is that code enforcement does not have the authority  to enter without the expressed permission of the owner.  A state inspector entering a state licensed facility has the right to enter at any time.  However, even a state inspector can not enter a unlicensed facility without permission.   It has been my experience that the only time a code enforcement inspector may call the owner ahead of time is when the particular house has been inspected based on complaints from the same people several times and as the inspector must go to the house, they  simply can save a bit of time by having the owner meet them there.

Is the law specific enough to determine with certainty what this house is ?

No, I don't think it is. I am an educated person who reads the law but can't figure out what is what. Too many gray areas to be really enforceable in my opinion.

My answer was:

Yes, to the degree the writers of the law believe it had to be. Actual and legally licensed “half-way”, rooming and boarding houses exist within the city of Jacksonville so we can see that the laws have indeed identified those facilities as what they are. A reasonable criteria has been set, used and proven to work to identify those facilities.

I believe that once you begin to make laws too detailed, they can be more easily abused.  In this case, what part of the law needs more detail?  I believe that the laws basically tell you what determines if a use requires a license.  If a house’s use does not require a license, then it is legal without one.  In the case of a rooming house, the law specifies what defines a rooming house for the purposes of licensing.  If a house does not require a license, then it is not a rooming house.   The law specifies what constitutes a single family houses.  If a house is used within those specifications, it is a legal single family house.

Perhaps what the real question here should be is:

If a house is being used for a legal use that I do not like or I believe to be using a “loophole” to be legal, should the laws be changed to accommodate my beliefs? 

I believe the answer to that question is no, it should not be changed because to do so is tramping on the civil rights of the owners of the house  and those who may live in the house.   However, if an issue is real and not made up, there could be times when  a law needs to be strengthen, but not at the expense of civil liberties.   I say this only because the civil liberties of all involved must be recognized.  Even so, there are other ways to deal with many “neighbor to neighbor” issues without changing laws.

If a house has been turned in and found to be legal by the various licensing and enforcement agencies, and I do not like the determination of those agencies, what should I do to change that outcome?

Nothing. Unless material new information is discovered after the inspection or there is strong suspicion that the inspector has been mislead by creating a potemkin village.

[/quote]


We agree here.  However, the reality is people often choose to believe that every house they turn in and is not found to be what they suspected is a “potemkin village“.  Common sense must be applied at some point and when the house has been visited multiple times, and the interior has been inspected every time, in other words, the owners of the house in question cooperated fully with the inspectors, perhaps it is time to believe in the system and accept that a house is a legal use. 

So, while we agree here, perhaps the new question is how do we prevent the public from abusing the complain system once a house has been determined to be legal?

[AlexS]

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.

It appears that the intent of the law clearly specifies a true family. The definition tries to list all definitions which could be construed as a family but shall not apply. So to me even the "low density group care home" of less than 5 people would not qualify as a family since "group care home" in general is excluded from the definition of family.

While this mentions "existing rooming houses” shall be identified by these characteristics, I also know that this is also part of the criteria used to determine if a complaint that a building is being used as a rooming house is valid or not.  By and by, though it says "individual storage of food”, I wouldn't put much stock in that one as then a son or daughter could not have a small refrigerator in their room nor could a wife, for instance, that is vegetarian keep a separate food supply from the non-vegetarian husband. Same with most of the listed appliances.

I don't think a son or daughter would have any issues here as they are related by blood and constitute a true family. Thereby the son/daughter constellation would not be construed as a rooming house even with a separate refrigerator.

[strider]

Alex, first let me begin by quoting something I posted earlier.  It applies in a basic sense to determining whether any house rented to 5 or fewer unrelated adults is one of the listed businesses by whatever definition may be used or if they are living together as a family unit:

What code enforcement is more likely to look for is whether the common areas, like living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens and family rooms, are indeed set up and used for the intended purpose. In other words, can the “family” members sit and watch TV together, eat together and cook together if they so chose. You can not require this behavior in a “unrelated family” anymore than you can in a “blood related” one, but the presumption of the possibility of acting together as a family unit must be there.

This all goes back to the intent.  If the intent is to have these five unrelated adults live together as a family unit, then it certainly can be viewed as a family.

Now let’s look at what you posted:

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.

It appears that the intent of the law clearly specifies a true family. The definition tries to list all definitions which could be construed as a family but shall not apply. So to me even the "low density group care home" of less than 5 people would not qualify as a family since "group care home" in general is excluded from the definition of family.

Before you can make that statement, you must post the accepted definition of a group care home. In your loose interpretation, you can also say that any four or five college kids sharing a house together is a fraternity and therefore an illegal use. Is that your intent? In addition, I believe you will find that there is a intended difference between the 5 and fewer unrelated adults and the low density group care home definition, which is listed as 6 and fewer.  Notice that the group care home starts at a max 6 rather than 5.

Again, this goes back to intent as much as anything. If the intent of the five college students is to be a fraternity, then they would be an illegal use.  If it is just five guys living together then no, it is not.  The same interpretation must apply across the board. Anything less would be illegal in itself.

While this mentions "existing rooming houses” shall be identified by these characteristics, I also know that this is also part of the criteria used to determine if a complaint that a building is being used as a rooming house is valid or not. By and by, though it says "individual storage of food”, I wouldn't put much stock in that one as then a son or daughter could not have a small refrigerator in their room nor could a wife, for instance, that is vegetarian keep a separate food supply from the non-vegetarian husband. Same with most of the listed appliances.

I don't think a son or daughter would have any issues here as they are related by blood and constitute a true family. Thereby that constellation should not be construed as a rooming house even with a separate refrigerator.

Again, I think you are missing the point. By definition, five unrelated adults can be as much of a family as a husband, wife and three children so therefore, the same standards must be applied to both a son or daughter with that refrigerator in their room and that unrelated adult. If you wish to determine whether a house is a rooming house based on the presence of a small refrigerator in every bedroom, for instance, and a house is occupied by a husband, wife and two kids and there is a small refrigerator in every bedroom, then that house is also a rooming house by your definition and subject to the same laws and conditions as any other rooming house.

The bottom line here is that the laws are in existence and written the way they are in the best attempt at ensuring equality of enforcement. Trying to apply a different interpretation to the various laws to make a group you do not like illegal is not only immoral, it is illegal.

[AlexS]

By looking at the definitions of rooming house and boarding house it becomes apparent that it highly matters if rooms are advertised to the public. If so, a DBPR license would be needed (with few exceptions).

It would therefore be interesting to know how residents for the "low density group homes" or "single family of 5 or less unrelated people residences" are found. Is anyone allowed to live there ? How do you find out about it ? Is some agency referring people ? Do current residents have a choice in who joins their living community ?

Boardinghouse  means a residential facility building where meals are regularly prepared and served to the residents only for compensation and where food is placed upon the table family-style without service or ordering of individual portions from a menu. A boardinghouse shall not be deemed to include a hotel, motel, group care home, family care home, recovery home, residential treatment facility, emergency shelter, emergency shelter home or nursing home.

Rooming houses  means a building in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public where rentals are for a period of a week or longer and occupancy is generally by residents rather than transient.

§ 509.242(1)(f), Florida Statutes: Roominghouse.--A roominghouse is any public lodging establishment that may not be classified as a hotel, motel, resort condominium, nontransient apartment, bed and breakfast inn, or transient apartment under this section. A roominghouse includes, but is not limited to, a boardinghouse.

Who needs a license ?

Anyone planning to operate a public lodging establishment in Florida will need a license from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. According to section 509.013 (4), Florida Statutes (FS).

(a) "Public lodging establishment" means any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests.

The focal point in determining illegal use seems to be the definition of a family. There currently appears to be a bit of a gray area. Perhaps the better way than to determine between legal single family and illegal rooming houses may be to go after houses which cause problems.

We currently have a "family" definition upheld by a United States Supreme Court decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas in 1974.   The Supreme Court concluded that rights of individuals under the federal Constitution are not violated when a city prohibits more than two unrelated people from occupying a home in a single-family residential zone.

In the 1984 case of Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo, the Michigan Supreme Court specifically rejected the Belle Terre decision.  In declaring the ordinance unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution, the court concluded:

"Unrelated persons are artificially limited to as few as two, while related families may expand without limit. Under the instant ordinance, twenty male cousins could live together, motorcycles, noise, and all, while three unrelated clerics could not . . . . The ordinance indiscriminately regulates where no regulation is needed and fails to regulate where regulation is most needed."

These state Supreme Court decisions do not leave cities without tools to address problems of noise, pollution, littering, overcrowding, safety, and traffic.  Laws regulating such issues can be enforced vigorously against offending households regardless of whether the occupants are related to each in a traditional sense.

Most people still believe that a person's home is his or her castle.  And they are leary of government regulation of private relationships.

True, the government may need to draw a line in terms of who may live in a residential area zoned for "single family" use.  But that line should be flexible, so that small groups of individuals who are functioning as a single family unit on a long-term basis are not put into the same category as an large group of students who are living together on a short term basis.

If a household considers itself to be a single family, and if it functions like a single family, then it should not matter to local politicians whether the group is related by blood or marriage.  Three elderly friends who share a home, an unmarried couple with children, or a same-sex couple with a foster child, should not be viewed as threats to family living.

The best way for a city council to avoid triggering "culture wars" in their community -- pitting conservatives against progressives -- is to place the focus of a new definition of "family" on function, not structure. 

[strider]

Alex, Let’s look at your post from a little different perspective:

We currently have a "family" definition upheld by a United States Supreme Court decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas in 1974. The Supreme Court concluded that rights of individuals under the federal Constitution are not violated when a city prohibits more than two unrelated people from occupying a home in a single-family residential zone.

In the 1984 case of Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo, the Michigan Supreme Court specifically rejected the Belle Terre decision. In declaring the ordinance unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution, the court concluded:

"Unrelated persons are artificially limited to as few as two, while related families may expand without limit. Under the instant ordinance, twenty male cousins could live together, motorcycles, noise, and all, while three unrelated clerics could not . . . . The ordinance indiscriminately regulates where no regulation is needed and fails to regulate where regulation is most needed."

These state Supreme Court decisions do not leave cities without tools to address problems of noise, pollution, littering, overcrowding, safety, and traffic. Laws regulating such issues can be enforced vigorously against offending households regardless of whether the occupants are related to each in a traditional sense.

Most people still believe that a person's home is his or her castle. And they are leary of government regulation of private relationships.

True, the government may need to draw a line in terms of who may live in a residential area zoned for "single family" use. But that line should be flexible, so that small groups of individuals who are functioning as a single family unit on a long-term basis are not put into the same category as an large group of students who are living together on a short term basis.

If a household considers itself to be a single family, and if it functions like a single family, then it should not matter to local politicians whether the group is related by blood or marriage. Three elderly friends who share a home, an unmarried couple with children, or a same-sex couple with a foster child, should not be viewed as threats to family living.

The best way for a city council to avoid triggering "culture wars" in their community -- pitting conservatives against progressives -- is to place the focus of a new definition of "family" on function, not structure.

You will noticed I changed a couple of “bolds”.  There are also more recent decisions out there. This one says you can’t regulate the number in a way, but other decisions have brought about what is considered a reasonable number.  While a few are out there at three unrelated adults, most are at five or more.  In some cases, even the number 5 has been thrown out as too limiting.

Hate to repeat myself, but….

(Can) the “family” members sit and watch TV together, eat together and cook together if they so chose. You can not require this behavior in a “unrelated family” anymore than you can in a “blood related” one, but the presumption of the possibility of acting together as a family unit must be there.

You can look at how a family unit lives together, but unless you can enforce those ideals on all families, you can not just enforce those ideals on an family of unrelated adults.

For instance, we have married couples that do not even live together yet, by law, they are a family.  We have unmarried couples with children who do live together, we have gay couples who are not allowed to get married who live together, and…well the list of possibilities is almost endless.  Unless you find a way that can define the “function” of all those different dynamics and treats each one equally, you risk a law that will be found immoral and illegal.

The focal point in determining illegal use seems to be the definition of a family. There currently appears to be a bit of a gray area. Perhaps the better way than to determine between legal single family and illegal rooming houses may be to go after houses which cause problems.

You are much better off not trying to make something  illegal that is not and worrying about the good neighbor, bad neighbor aspect of the issue.  Is the house in question actually causing real problems?  Make sure they are indeed real problems and not some made up one to try to move people out of “your” community because you don’t like them.  Once legitimate complaints are filed, most of the time, even here in Springfield, the issues with that house are lessened.   If the house is actually next to you and there is a problem and a complaint filed, it is much more likely to be taken seriously over those complaints filed time and time again from “across town.” 

[strider]

One thing I didn't address was how residents are found for the houses in question.  They are found pretty much the same way as all renters are found.  Again, the intent is what matters here.  Do the residents intend to stay long term and does the landlord intend to have the resident there long term?  If so, it is the same as a rental all over town.

We also should be somewhat concerned about Stephen’s last post.  Are we missing some really cool residents because we are trying to get rid of a group we do not like?  Are we doing a disservice to people who need this type of housing ( sharing a house with other unrelated adults) to live where they want to live and take advantage of the services ( buses, walk ability, etc.) that are offered here?

[nvrenuf]

Strider, out of mere curiosity what is the definition of "long term"?

[sheclown]

Long Term, in my mind, means never having to leave.

[AlexS]

Of course with changing the highlighting you have proven my point that it's a gray area. Same text with changed highlighting can prove both viewpoints.

(Can) the “family” members sit and watch TV together, eat together and cook together if they so chose. You can not require this behavior in a “unrelated family” anymore than you can in a “blood related” one, but the presumption of the possibility of acting together as a family unit must be there.

I purposely did skip this as it deflects from the topic at hand. The topic here is the characteristic of a rooming/boarding house and not if you should regulate what a "family" does. It is however relevant what constitutes a family.

It would therefore be interesting to know how residents for the "low density group homes" or "single family of 5 or less unrelated people residences" are found. Is anyone allowed to live there ? How do you find out about it ? Is some agency referring people ? Do current residents have a choice in who joins their living community ?

One thing I didn't address was how residents are found for the houses in question.  They are found pretty much the same way as all renters are found.  Again, the intent is what matters here.  Do the residents intend to stay long term and does the landlord intend to have the resident there long term?  If so, it is the same as a rental all over town.

That was a rather evasive answer as it does not tell if it's publicly advertised, open to the general public and what timeframe it's advertised for. All these are relevant in regard to current law and licensing.

[sheclown]

Alex, we can only answer to what we do, not what everyone does.  In our case, it is friends, or friends of friends, word of mouth. AA community. etc.  We do not advertise to the general public.

Remember that we (not me and Joe, but the organization)  have been operating Home Away From Home for 23 years.

I would like to invite you to come and visit us, again, and we can answer any and all questions that you may have. 

[nvrenuf]

Long Term, in my mind, means never having to leave.

That's a potentially really long lease!

[strider]

Alex, the quote and my discussion about it was in response to the comment in your quote about the “function” of a family.  Which goes back to how do you determine if a house with five unrelated adults living in it is a "family" residence or not. It is very much on topic as much of what is said and is posted about what makes a house a legal single family or an illegal rooming house focuses on whom rather than what.

As far as the "evasive answer", as I am assuming that we are talking primarily "in general" as opposed to a specific "house in question" - in other words, all possible houses that could fall into the five and under unrelated adults family issue, then no, not evasive, just general.  How do you advertise a rental?  Word of mouth, advertisements in "for rent" sections, HUD referrals, sometimes agencies, etc.  Some of the houses that are "in question" have advertised on the SPAR Council forum.

Do the residents have a say in who may or may not live there?  Yes...and no.  Again, I can't answer for all the possible houses as I do not know.

If you want more specifics, PM me and we can meet and talk as we have before.

“Long term” is defined by the state in a way.  Most think of it as a normal lease term…six months to one year, but three to six months is often OK with apartment complexes - IE - it is not transient per the state so no transient taxes due.  I believe you will find that 3 months and the transient tax drops off regardless of where the person lives.  Some apartment complexes would rent for 3 month terms (but can't do that more that twice a year) , but I think generally 6 months is the min. and of course, the “norm” is one year.  So, how do you define “long term”?

[strider]

How many houses has the community been told we rent out, Dan?  From some of the e-mails Louise sent out, you would think we already have one per block.

[Springfield Girl]

At the risk of sounding dumb, I thought landlords could have additional tax burden on leases of less than 12 months. Anyone have the answer?