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

[uptowngirl]

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?

[Charles Hunter]

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? 

[CS Foltz]

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!

[AlexS]

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

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.

[sheclown]

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.

[strider]

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!

[fsu813]

"...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.

[strider]

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.

[fsu813]

I'd say that anyone who thinks otherwise is fear mongering, as this is what it's specifically aimed at.

[Dan B]

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)

[fsu813]

"...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.

[sheclown]

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

[Dan B]

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

Edmonds' 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

Like 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?

[uptowngirl]

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?

[JaxNative68]

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.