Thread: Overcrowding can be fixed without defining family

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/bu ... 52,00.html

Overcrowding can be fixed without defining family
By Bonnie Erbe
March 2, 2006

It's happening in Milford, Mass. It's happening in Manassas, Va. And Colorado, too. Truth is, it's happening nationwide. But the nation has yet to face up to this increasingly common occurrence and divine a national solution.

The issue is local overcrowding. It arose recently in the Boston suburb of Milton. Residents began complaining to the town's Board of Selectmen about horrifically overcrowded rental units. Houses built for single families were being called "home" by as many as 20 to 25 people at a time. The town decided to respond to these complaints by changing the definition of "family" under local zoning laws.

Manassas, Va., drew national attention last year when town leaders enacted a similar change. The town revamped the definition of "family" in the city's zoning code so that only immediate relatives could live in single-family homes — even if the total number of inhabitants remained below the legal occupancy limit. Town elders are revisiting that regulation after eliciting cries of "racism" by Latino advocacy groups.

Both towns are making the same mistake. It's the legitimate province of local government to control overcrowding. I, for one, would not be thrilled to buy a home, only to have a group of 25 (relatives or not) move into the single-family house next door. Nor would anyone I know, including my friends of Latin American, Asian-American or black descent.

The definition of what comprises a "family" had nothing to do with this issue. In Karl Rove's America, the phrase "definition of family" has acquired combustible properties. It's like taunting the radical left and the radical right, who come together like hydrogen sulfide and nitric acid, and then feigning surprise at the resulting brisance.

In any event, town elders should have had the intelligence and foresight to stay as far away from redefining "family" as possible. This is an overcrowding issue, plain and simple. It must be possible to make it illegal for any group, blood-related or not, to stuff too many people into any one dwelling.

Why not limit people per square foot? I'm no zoning expert, nor am I an architect. But it seems to me that a total of more than five or six residents would tax a 1,500-square-foot home beyond reason. Attach reasonable limits to how many cars the residents of one home can park, on or off the street, and that limits the number of residents per home as well.

Lest you think the attempt to limit occupancy levels won't end up in your backyard, think again. The Boston Globe spoke with experts who report parallel efforts in "other cities and towns across the country."

" ¿We're seeing it from Colorado through the South and up the East Coast now, particularly where there's been a dramatic increase in the number of not just Latino but Asian-American immigrants,' said Shanna Smith, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C.," the Globe wrote over the weekend.

It's a mistake for liberal immigrant-advocacy groups to ascribe the term "racist" to anyone who objects to overcrowding in their neighborhoods. I wouldn't care if the whole House of Windsor moved into a single-family home in my neighborhood. The increased noise, traffic, garbage, pollution and the impact on already-overcrowded local schools, etc., would degrade the quality of life just the same, no matter what the ethnic origin of the new residents happened to be. Nor would I be any happier to pay higher taxes for more ambulance and emergency services, more police, more roads, bigger schools, increased water, sewer and transportation services for the Queen of England than I would for anyone else.

The Globe quotes "Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (as saying) what communities really need to do is provide more affordable housing." If that means taxing long-term residents even more than they already pay in a high-priced real estate market, again, I suggest this group and others like it look elsewhere for a reasonable solution.

— Bonnie Erbe writes for Scripps Howard News Service.

Aren't there laws about maximum occupancy of a building that are enforced by the Fire Marshall? Do those laws apply to residential dwellings as well as commercial? If so, you could demand that your local Fire Marshall enforce the fire codes.

Can't the people who own the properties dictate how many people may live in a dwelling?

For example, If I rent a house with one bedroom and one bath, am I not allowed to say that only two adults may live in the house?