Excessive Occupancy Ordinance Enforced
“D-Day” is around the corner for 4 college students living in a rental home in Fredericksburg City. One student must vacate the home by January 29, 2009 in order to adhere to the City’s “excessive residential occupancy” ordinance. The ordinance is in place to help prevent excessive noise, cars, and other effects to a neighborhood of too many people living in one house. This case is the first that Fredericksburg City has been able to take to court. This case raises some interesting questions for me.
1. Does the ordinance unfairly target college students and/or young professionals? Let’s face it, the cost of living is high in Fredericksburg City and the surrounding areas, even in this volatile real estate market. A one-bedroom home rents for $600-$975. A two-bedroom rents for $625-$1550. A three-bedroom home rents for $850-$1650. And a four-bedroom home rents for $1200-$2100. Prices vary depending on the area of the City the home is located in. (Information found in MRIS and are current Active Listing prices). The closer to the downtown area and University you want to live, the more expensive the rent. When I first moved to this City in 2004 I quickly learned that I would have to have at least one roommate and sell my blood in order to make a monthly rent payment. Luckily, I was able to work out a living arrangement that was beneficial to me, as well as my roommate. But, many Fredericksburg City residents aren’t so lucky. Taking college students out of the equation; there are still plenty of professionals living in the City finding it hard to make ends meet. Roommates are a way of life here.
2. Does this ordinance actually do what it is supposed to do? Can twelve people still live in a house, as long as they are related; and as long as they are quiet, not violate this ordinance? Are four unrelated people living in a house noisier than 4 related people? I grew up with 4 boys living in my home. By the eyes of the law, we were considered related. Being ”related” didn’t make them any less noisy or less likely to throw parties. (And boy could my brothers throw a loud party!) All of these boys were the same age, so we got 4 more cars in our driveway in 1 year. Did that mean that their cars took up less room because my brothers were related? I think our old neighbors would say “No,” If it is a health risk that the City is concerned about or a possible noise violation they are trying to avoid, shouldn’t the City be concerned with the general occupancy of a dwelling, not the relationship of the occupants? Or, could this approach cross into Fair Housing whelms?
3. How do landlords feel about this ordinance? Do they feel that the City is infringing on their property rights? If a property owner decides to rent their dwelling to 4 unrelated people with good credit, good jobs, and no criminal history, why does the city care? Let’s say that these 4 unrelated occupants are police officers. I would think that most neighbors would enjoy the benefits of having police officers living beside them. What about teachers? With budget cuts looming and school systems trying to get their seasoned teachers to retire so they can hire less expensive, less experienced teachers - these teachers need a place to live. Last time I checked, new teachers do not get paid nearly enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living in this area. Would the City take four teachers or four police officers to court for violating this ordinance? (My guess is that they would have to, but would these professionals be better equipped than college students to fight the ordinance in court?)
Now, I am in no way supporting violating City ordinances and I am not promoting ignoring safety and health regulations. But, I do question the City’s intent with this ordinance in the way it is written and how it has been presented to the community. It does appear to target college students. And for now, students are NOT protected under local Fair Housing laws.
…and how does it play with the First Amendment (that old thing) and the freedom of association? Last I checked, at least as of Jan. 20 the people had the right to “peaceably assemble”!