Uneducated (in the field of law, anyway) opinion follows. In other words, reach for the salt: Ok, your question is, "Is the law against more than 3 unrelated tenants legal?" Well, yes. If the law was passed using all legal mechanisms and meeting the local requirements necessary for enactment, then I would say, yes. Any kind of idea can be made into a law that is perfectly legal and binding as long as it does not violate rights granted by the constitution. The usual reasoning behind such a law has to do with "quality of life" issues, wherein the single-family neighbors don't want a house next door with 10 college guys (and their 10 cars) sprawled all over the place. I live in a college town and I've seen why they feel that way more than once. Even in a non-college town, the people most likely to want to live that way (don't yell - I said "most likely") are the very people Mr. and Mrs. Goodneighbor don't want to live near. And again, I've seen why more than once. All that said, I don't agree with that kind of law - the "big broom" law that sweeps the good people out with the bad. If people don't want to live next door to a parking lot, then limit the number of cars that can be parked, or how they may be parked etc (the way they do in my neighborhood). If you don't want loud parties next door, enact and enforce noise ordinances. If the appearance of the property is the issue, enact and enforce standards for that. You see my point, I hope. But the answer to your original question, "Can they do that?" is more than likely, "Yep, they sure can." On 3/3/08, MSMB wrote: <Snip> -- Larry J Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
I have seen "no overnight parking" used the same way. Homeowner with a 2 car driveway has no problem, but group of college kids renting a house is a different story. It is definitely NOT for street cleaning! The funny side effect is ocassionally you get neighbors who pave over their yards and rent out parking spaces. There's a quality of life improvement for you! Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
Where these city ordinances, or more likely a zoning ordinance, run up a tree is when someone rents a small apartment and then moves in their entire extended family. Thus far exceeding the expected number of inhabitants and cars in the street. When this type of ordinance is intelligently challenged it will fold like a cheap suit. I would think that as this goes to property rights and property use that there is a large volume of case law to rely on when fighting it. You are correct in stating that the best approach is to control the objectionable behavior and not the number of occupants. The only limit on occupants should be based on reasonable health concerns. Larry Johnson wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
Once upon a time I lived in Moriches and that city had an ordinance that said you could not work on a vehicle unless it was in a garage. The drive was not OK. Most houses did not have a garage, there were a few carports though. The intent was to prevent the 57 Ford up on blocks with the doors and wheels off. They only enforced it when there was a dead vehicle in the drive or street. Selective enforcement. Seth Grandeau wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
the number of occupants can tax the sanitation system that comes with the home. and lots of other problems. all of this impacts the quality of life for the neighbors. while you collect the rent. and go on about your life blithely unaware or uncaring. Rich wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
This has been exactly my point. Neighborhoods should be concerned about their deterioration; the deterioration of property. 6 people living in 1200 square feet will surely run the place down. Even a well intentioned landlord with 50 properties will have trouble keeping up with the work. But 3 people living in a home that is 2700 square feet is the waste of an urban resource. What we are really dealing with is the ecology of neighborhoods. The restrictions on me invites over construction (and more often than not, in my opinion, it is over construction of buildings that are put up nearly over night and not well constructed; lacking in character) which ultimately can have negative economic effects (remember that the great depression had to do with over construction; in my college town, if the increase in student population that is not anticipated does not materialize there could be lots of corporate landlords going broke and letting their buildings run down). In my case, with a house that large and restricted to 3 people, with rising costs, I will probably be forced to sell; how many 3 people groups can afford a place that big? At a certain point it makes sense for me to sell the house and put my money into things like preferred stocks which are now making up to 8%. But to whom will I sell? It will be to the large, absentee corporate landlord who is buying up land in my neighborhood. I could have sold several times already. The nice old beveled wood that I recently paid $5000 to paint will turned into vinyl siding; the cheapest appliances will be installed; nice old hardwood floors will be painted instead of sanded and refinished; that large corporate landlord could easily be one who "looks the other way" and allows 5 people to move in. There should be some standard for measuring how many people per square foot will result in a deterioration of a property, and I would be quite happy to live with that. In my neighborhood particularly, where my house is one of the largest, not many properties would be affected. Right now my property is wasted.
There is no difference between a family of 4 or 5 and a rental with a total of 4 or 5. The ordinance is capricious and discriminatory. You count the bedrooms and that sets the reasonable limit and that becomes the basis of the code. If a family shows up with two parents and 3 in-laws and 5 children for a 3 BR rental it becomes a no go based on the city code and it is enforceable in court. The Greenville, SC ordinance that sparked this original post is just wrong. The only reason it has not been hauled into court is that all of the people who have been busted under the ordinance did not know how to fight it and win or just paid th bribe (fine) and pressed on. I sent this response to another individual off list. This has been slightly edited to obtain a "G" rating, I hope. The intended meaning is still intact. You are indeed correct. Your right to utilize your property is bing infringed. You are taking an economic hit that you should not have to take. You have standing in the eyes of the law. Rich MSMB wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
and here all this time i thought it was buying of stocks by using underfunded margins. plus the war reparations of Europe. the break up of Nations after the War . example the Germen Empire, the Russian Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire and lets not forget the Ottoman Empire. and here in the good old USA the loss of revenue the experiment with Government control of people the Volstead Act did. and of course lots of other factors i have thankfully forgotten. then there is one other thing one should maybe ask. where does your property rights end? a quarter inch from my nose? get with your neighbors find out what thy think, if you are all one the same page on this go to the city council with it get an zoning exemption. maybe it will be the end of the story MSMB wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
a renter will almost never be the same as the owner occupier. especially for the neighbors Rich wrote: <Snip> Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
This OT has certainly collected a lot of interest. Opinions abound. Must be the coffee. Typical of coffee houses -- even virtual ones. I'm curious...you meant to post this to another list, but which list actually gave you better feedback? -- Dave Kvindlog iHomeroast Cedar Rapids, Iowa Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com
It is hard to say... except that the discussion has been livelier here. And the atmosphere --as in a coffee house-- so much better.
On 3/5/08, MSMB wrote: <Snip> It's all these coffee junkies hopped up on caffeine... -- Dave Kvindlog iHomeroast Cedar Rapids, Iowa Homeroast mailing list Homeroasthttp://lists.sweetmariascoffee.com/listinfo.cgi/homeroast-sweetmariascoffee.com