angela has left a new comment on your post "Board Of Housing Adjustments & Apeals":
OMG 7:48, let me cut and paste a message I have received from John Pick. I'd really love to hear what John would have to say in response to what you've said. It seems to me there is almost no difference between the federal and local definition of "family". I never responded to this email from him because it just seemed pointless at the time. I find it very hard to believe that there has been a single case against a landlord or the city yet for discrimination based on 4-2. Shame on you Salisbury! Can't wait to see the class action suit posted in the paper and on the blogs.
From: jpick@ci.salisbury.md.us
Subject: RE: 4 to 2
Date: July 17, 2008 5:57:30 PM EDT
Angie - The attorney, who is filling in for the City Attorney while he is on vacation, has responded by saying that, generally, provisions in zoning codes limiting the number of unrelated individuals that can reside in a single-family residential zone have been upheld in the courts. In the cases she has reviewed, the limitation is accomplished through the definition of "family," as has been in done in our code. The courts have generally approved of this approach and she is unaware of this type of classification being condemned by federal law. I hope that this proves helpful. John
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
12 comments:
Just in case anyone starts digging for it, here's what I was responding to:
Angela, the City isn't asking the landlords to find out anything. In fact, not one, repeat, NOT ONE rental has had the family definition applied to it and NOT ONE group of 3 or 4 unrelated people has come forward asking to be recognized as a family. In the last hearing, the City's attorney argued that the family definition did not apply to all these rental houses under the 4 to 2 law. They never did explain why the family definition was in the middle of this law or how or why it couldn't possibly apply. Neither did they say under what circumstances the family definition would apply. Simply put, they're not enforcing anything under the 4 to 2 law unless it concerns houses owned by people from out of town or non-SAPOA members. There's a good class-action lawsuit for all those outsiders who were shut down under the same laws that let all the SAPOA houses slide.
I should also note the 4-2 law. This thing is absolutely huge, so I'll just put a piece of it. If you're interested in more, its at http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/Portals/0/CityCodes/Title172007.pdf under the definition of "family".
“Family” means and includes, subject to the exceptions stated below:
I. A core consisting of one person living alone or one of the following groups living as a single house- keeping unit:
A. Two or more persons who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly au-
thorized custodial relationship, such as foster children, placed by an agency licensed to operate in Maryland;
B. Up to a maximum of four persons who are not so related, hereinafter referred to as “unrelated persons” provided, however, that:
1.a. Any existing lawful occupancy, in any dwelling or dwelling unit, including an apartment, in an R-5,
R-8 or R-10 district or in Spring Chase PRD No. 1, the maximum shall be two unrelated persons, not including the children of either of them, after December 16, 2002, subject to the occupancy permitted by subsections (I)(B)(1)(b) and (c) of this section.
Angie:
This type of occupancy limit (on unrelated persons) is commonplace in the United States. Here, before it was 2, it was 4. The number varies from place to place, and the lower limit is not that unusual.
It has been upheld in numerous courts.
FYI - it only applies in certain areas (single-family home neighborhoods and the Spring Chase PRD, where Ms. Cathcart was one of the proponents). Also, minor children of either adult occupant are excepted -- thus, it is family friendly.
PS -- don't believe everything that SAPOA says!
Joe:
Pick's response is not competent in the least. Please post something that points out that occupancy limits are both legal and ordinary. The person complianing is either ignorant or a SAPOA plant.
Cathcart was for it before she was against it.
Pick said nothing! Just rambled on
about bull sh*t.
Here is my point, and where the problem exists:
Hypothetically....
3 Young adults see a listing in the paper for a house for rent. They make an appointment to meet the landlord. As soon as they pull up, the landlord sees that there are 3 of them.
The landlord is then forced to make a choice. Does he ask their relation to one another? Or does he proceed to show the rental and give an application?
Lets say he doesn't ask, and then he gives them the application and on their application they all have different last names. However, everything on their application is approved.
Now he has another tough decision. He has to choose between telling them they can't rent with him because of the assumption that are unrelated, OR, he can allow them to move in because federal law says that he has to.
Lets back up and pretend that he outright asked them before showing them the rental. What if they are agents of federal fair housing investigating landlords in Salisbury because they've heard that landlords in Salisbury discriminate. This does happen! Well, now this landlord, following local laws, is going to get slapped with a fine and possible jail time for asking if the three young adults were related to one another.
I understand there was a limitation before and that this limitation may exist in other cities too. I think they need to change the name of "single family units" to something that doesn't include the name "family" to avoid confusion. The only thing that Single Family Homes means is that its a freestanding house as opposed to an apartment. FFA's definitions are very clear. Maryland limits occupants in a dwelling to no more than 2 people per bedroom. Salisbury needs to either limit the total occupancies without using the word unrelated or family at all (how about getting this whole thing out of the family definition in the city codes), or they need to just get rid of the code altogether.
There are significantly more effective and legal ways to solve the problems that are common with renters. Limiting related occupants does nothing. This whole thing will never change until someone actually suffers a damage as a result of it and chooses to get a lawyer. Its unfortunate that some of our legal system has to be based on already occurring consequences as opposed to some citizens standing up and saying, Lets just change this BEFORE it becomes a problem.
Angela:
Even if you're not a SAPOA plant, give us a break. Since this is a common zoning provision, there is no "tough decision" for the landlord -- he/she simply tells the prospective tenant about the law and puts a simple statement and protection in the lease -- it's done all over the United States.
PS - Don't believe everything that SAPOA or the Mayor tells you.
Angie:
Is your last name Maloney?
Angela,
The landlords know the law, and if they own a home zoned R-1, they should not be renting to 3 or more individuals. Case closed. these zoning laws have been upheld by federal courts over and over again. In Salisbury, they only enforce the law if you are not a member of SAPOA. SAPOA members can break every zoning law on the books without fear of retribution. One day, a house full of students will burn down, and the deaths of those kids will be partially the fault of SAPOA, Richard Insley, and the ridiculous members of the Housing Board. I sincerely hope that never happens, but I would bet it will.
No I am not an SAPOA plant. I actually had to google it to find out what it was. Before my most recent child was born and I decided to stay at home with my little ones, I was in property management, but it was in multi unit communities. My only "crusade" in this whole thing is it irritates me that they feel limiting the number of occupants will change the problems they're having in these neighborhoods. I think that ALL landlords, whether they are in the SAPOA or not, should be held to the same HIGHER standards. Limiting tenants is pointless. Make these landlords actually know the laws and make them enforce their leases. In the leases I used to work with, if a resident had the police called on them even just a single time, we could evict them. THAT is how you solve problems with neighborhood disrupting parties, drug deals, and anything else irritating everyone. Sure it makes some enemies when you're kicking someone out, but it also makes your other tenants and the neighbors respect you and the lease that they have signed with you.
They (as in the city of Salisbury) are the ones who are ignorant if they actually feel that limiting the number of people is going to help anything.
Angela,
"Limiting related occupants does nothing."
That is not correct. Occupancy limits have been found to work and failure to use them or enforce them has been found to increase problems and blight.
"They (as in the city of Salisbury) are the ones who are ignorant if they actually feel that limiting the number of people is going to help anything."
Again, not true. There are several people in Salisbury who are very well versed on the subject and there was a lot of research done by them. Maybe you should talk to one of them.
I'd be more than happy to. normalbirthadvocate@yahoo.com
I'm not saying that sarcastically.
One question though: do you disagree with the idea that landlords should be held responsible for the actions of their tenants? For example, being fined for the police being forced to respond to the activities of their tenants.
Post a Comment