|
and agreed to pay the group homes $5.25
<br />million. In short and in sum, the fight cost the
<br />city $io million. Even at the cost of building a
<br />new, high -end group home specially adapted
<br />for people for physical disabilities, this $10
<br />million "wasted" in the litigation could have
<br />provided more than 8o new beds in Newport
<br />Beach, based roughly on the $600,00o re-
<br />cently spent elsewhere to build a five -bed
<br />facility (Salasky 2012).
<br />THE 'SEVEN -NUN CONUNDRUM'
<br />To illustrate the dramatic effect of the FHAA,
<br />consider this real controversy. It is guaranteed
<br />to make you smile, shake your head in wonder-
<br />ment, and provide you with a conversation
<br />starter with other people who share your inter-
<br />est in planning and zoning.
<br />We need to start with the typical zoning
<br />definition of "family." Nearly every local gov-
<br />ernment defines "family" consistent in most
<br />respects with the definition upheld by the U. S.
<br />Supreme Court in 1974:
<br />With this definition an unlimited number of
<br />people can live together so long as they are
<br />related by blood, adoption, or marriage, or in
<br />the alternative, no more than two unrelated
<br />people can live together. Some local regula-
<br />tions allow an unlimited number of related
<br />persons to live together and along with them
<br />some limited number, say two or three, unre-
<br />lated persons.
<br />Is your definition similar? Almost certainly
<br />it is. Remember, however, that we actually have
<br />51 constitutions in this country, one federal and
<br />5o state, and what may be constitutional under
<br />federal law may not be constitutional under
<br />state law. A half -dozen or so states interpreting
<br />their state constitutions have ruled this kind of
<br />definition of family unconstitutional under their
<br />state constitutions, holding that the definition
<br />is not reasonably related to promoting the pub-
<br />lic's health, safety, and general welfare.
<br />Obviously a typical group home of six or
<br />eight or more unrelated individuals, with or
<br />without one or two resident managers, cannot
<br />be located in the residential districts of nearly
<br />all of the municipalities in this country, unless
<br />those local governments happen to have some
<br />type of group home zoning.
<br />This brings us to Joliet, Illinois, in the
<br />mid-199os when three nuns, Franciscan Sisters
<br />of the Sacred Heart, proposed to live together
<br />in a single-family zoning district, bringing in a
<br />fourth sister and wanting to have at any time
<br />up to three additional guests, women consider-
<br />ing becoming members of the order (Merriam
<br />and Sitkowski 1998). The regulations allowed
<br />only three unrelated people to live together.
<br />The nuns sought zoning approval to allow four
<br />nuns to live in the home and to convert the
<br />basement into the three additional bedrooms
<br />for their guests.
<br />More than 1o0 home owners signed a
<br />petition against the application, claiming that
<br />the convent would damage the single-family
<br />character of the neighborhood, depress prop-
<br />erty values, and result in increased taxes when
<br />the home was removed from the tax rolls. One
<br />neighbor said: "We have no objection to three
<br />nuns living there but we do object to four or
<br />more. If this variation is allowed to go through,
<br />the city council, in effect, will be allowing a
<br />mini -hotel to be established in our neighbor-
<br />0 A small drug and
<br />alcohol recovery
<br />facility in a low
<br />density residential
<br />setting.
<br />hood. The nuns will come and go, novices will
<br />come and go, visitors will come and go. The
<br />result will be that our property values would
<br />decrease" (Ziemba 1998).
<br />The city council did vote to give the
<br />zoning approval, and the mayor, who lived
<br />nearby, noted that a family of seven —a couple
<br />with five children —could move into the same
<br />house without any zoning approval: "It would
<br />be legal, even though the impact would be
<br />more intense" (Ziemba 1998). Now, here is the
<br />punchtine and the question you ask your plan-
<br />ner friends at the next social event after you
<br />have described this background: Under what
<br />condition could these seven nuns live together
<br />in virtually any single-family dwelling unit in
<br />any neighborhood in any city, town, or county
<br />anywhere all across this great country regard-
<br />less of the local definition family and regard-
<br />less of the federal constitutional right of local
<br />government to restrict the definition of family?
<br />Answer: These seven nuns could live to-
<br />gether as a household unit as a matter of fed-
<br />eral taw, the FHAA to be specific, if they were
<br />recovering alcoholics or substance abusers, or
<br />otherwise disabled. The "Seven -Nun Conun-
<br />drum" teaches us two things: the traditional
<br />definition of family needs to be reconsidered,
<br />as it is a complete bar to group homes, and
<br />local governments need to get out ahead of the
<br />group homes issue by affirmatively planning
<br />and regulating for them so that they are sited
<br />in the best locations and no one will ever have
<br />reason to go to court and claim that they are
<br />excluded from living in the community.
<br />IT ALL STARTS WITH PLANNING
<br />Planning for and regulating group homes
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 6.16
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4
<br />
|