Escambia County bans more than five unrelated people from living in single-family home

[The Straight Story]

Escambia County (FL) commissioners Thursday approved a controversial zoning change, transferred ownership of a Superfund site to the city, and chose a firm to study the Pensacola Civic Center.

At Thursday's meeting, commissioners approved:

» A zoning change that bans more than five unrelated people from living in single-family detached homes.

The matter arose from the complaints of residents living near homes rented by college students on the edge of the University of West Florida campus. They complained the students were disruptive, threw wild parties, littered and parked in the yard.

The students, and owners of the homes they live in, said the students were quiet, orderly and are being unfairly targeted. Some are already threatening to sue the county.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110408/NEWS01/104080316/1006/news01/Escambia-Commission-Roommate-number-limited-5

[Raven]

1. I believe this was attempted in MA some years ago due to

the large number of student renters in the Boston area. It won't hold up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I want to remember that as well, do you recall what was the legal reasoning?

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I know a lot about this

It won't hold up IF political forces make them roll back the ordinance. Otherwise it is legal. So called "Anti-Grouper" zoning laws were legalized by the Supreme Court during in 1974. They upheld "the Bell Terre Ordinance" named after a wealthy and exclusive Village on Long Island which first instituted the approach:

http://plannersreference.com/aicp/law-cases/village-of-belle-terre-v-boraas-1974/

The real kicker is that it was Justice William Douglas who wrote the majority ruling - word supposedly is he felt it was essential to strengthen local zoning powers as part of a larger to give communities the power they needed to fight back against larger societal and legal forces.

I helped form a political coalition that fought the Town of Hempstead when they attempted to enact similar zoning restrictions. As chance would have it Alphonse D'Amato was the Assistant Supervisor there at the time and he was the prime mover to enact it. We ambushed him at a Town Meeting - they never saw us coming. D'Amato refused to officially back down - it was passed and then immediately sent to some type of committee purgatory to study the implications of how it should be enforced - and it NEVER was. It took the wind out of the sales of other Republican efforts on Long Island at the time to pass similar resolutions into law elsewhere.

[Lyric]

2. They're doing the same thing here in one of our residential neighborhoods.

Except here, they've banned more than TWO unrelated people from living in a single-family home. The neighborhood is one called "South Park", which is an upper-class residential neighborhood. It's mostly unwarranted; there have been very few incidents over there, as most students live in Sunnyside (the de facto student neighborhood). The problem is that there are two streets' worth of very large, multi-bedroom houses over in South Park, and students often rent them to share them with roommates because South Park is quieter and cleaner than Sunnyside. Now, students are stuck either living in the dorms, living in Sunnyside, or living in one of the enormous privately-owned student housing complexes that are loud, ill-maintained, and have a reputation for being unsafe.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. "Two or more adults unrelated by blood adoption or marriage"...

That language comes from the original Bell Terre ordinance - see my other post, I think it might be #8.

We fought back against the town by assembling a coalition of College Students, Libertarians, University Officials concerned about adaquate housing, and Seniors who also faced compelling economic reasons to explore shared housing. College friendly media helped us build our protests. The arguments trotted out to defend the new zoning restrictions tended to be that they were attempting to prevent too many cars using a single household, or too much trash being generated by one household etc. We said if those are the problems legislate about those problems, don't use an atom bomb approach that hurts legitimate community needs.

[KittyWampus]

3. The answer is to have police show up for noise disturbances and give large fines to landlords

who own houses where police repeatedly have to show up.

[FLPanhandle]

4. I have to laugh at the way each side portrays themselves

On one hand the students were "disruptive, threw wild parties, littered and parked in the yard" - probably sometimes they did.

On the other hand the students were "quiet and orderly" - probably most of the time they were.

No way students are continuously partying, but to claim college kids are always quiet and orderly is equally unbelievable.

[KittyWampus]

5. when I lived in the dorms, it was miserable. MANY idiots partied every night

all night long.

[eShirl]

10. I've lived in a dorm, and I've lived in a fraternity house (both co-ed)

On average the dorm was far worse, in terms of trying to sleep or study.

[FLPanhandle]

11. I remember the dorms too

After a couple of years, rented a house nearby. It was much quieter there.

That's why I didn't think the house people were continuously partying. There was some but at least off campus it was limited to the weekends.

I agree, by the time I was a sophomore, it got to be old and miserable.

[Snoutport]

6. But...where will my six maids live?

[The Straight Story]

9. Easy, they would make an exception for homes 200 sq ft above the largest poor person's house

problem solved for the wealthy :)

[Ikonoklast]

13. You don't maintain a Servant's Quarters?

Meh.

Nouveau riche poseur...

[justabob]

14. I understand the frustration with college partiers but

I am a lot more concerned with homes that have multiple unrelated people living together to keep from being homeless. I knew this was coming.... one more way to make life more difficult for people who are already struggling.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. This tactic is almost 40 years old

Please refer to my posts numbers 8 and 12. It can not be fought legally (unless you have a top notch national legal team willing to take ti all the way - the Supreme Court has alrady ruled on it. It must must be fought politically.

You can fight back by organizing a broad based community coalition. When we did this we called ourselves "Long Islanders for Residential Rights". Framing is important.