City enforcing residential occupancy laws?

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

Do you have citation for this? Because having a higher limit on the number of occupants for group homes strikes me as being very much in common with the sorts of accommodation that is legally made for people with disabilities. And these laws a very widespread. Courts in other states have generally kept them, only sometimes requiring a more expansive definition of "family".

At the time there were no known cites. Just consultant and legal counsel views that we could not have a statute that allowed 10 related occupancy and not 10 unrelated elderly. There was some view we might get away with regulating drug rehab facility but that there was a good possibility those would end up overturned...is drug addiction recovery a handicap?

[Pghuser]

Originally Posted by gg

Not a fan of a judge throwing around those kind of numbers so casually. So you take it to court and again and again. Guess that is the idea, a money grab, like they do to people thrown in jail who are broke, so they sit in jail for a few years. Guess no one can mess with the big bad judge though. Lots of power.

Not a money grab. The landlord will appeal to Common Pleas court and by the time he has his hearing the violations will be abated and the fine will be somewhere in the hundreds. He does this so the appeal judge can't just wipe out the fine completely.