This larger number of related individuals will likely create more issues with overcrowding, traffic and noise problems than four unrelated individuals who live together.
This law denies the property owner economically viable use of his land (the ability to lease the property to more than a set number of unrelated individuals) without just compensation.
· Ninth Amendment: Reservation of Rights: This amendment has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to provide for the freedom from intrusion by government into one’s private life.
By restricting the number of individuals and defining the categories of persons who may live together at an owner’s property, the law intrudes upon the owner’s right to privacy, as it limits the classes of people with whom the owner may conduct business.
· Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Clause: This amendment provides that “no state shall ... Deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” as it places greater restrictions on certain groups of homeowners and residents than it does on other groups.
By placing limitations of the number of and classifications of individuals who may reside together, the law imposes greater limitations on owners who choose to rent their homes.
I have been a property manager/landlord, broker/owner and Realtor for almost 20 years and have been present at approximately 900 closings. At each closing — in addition to the transfer of brick, wood, mortar, shingles, etc.— there is a transfer of the “bundle of rights” from the seller to the buyer.
My question to a property owner who prefers this segregationist law to remain a law is as follows. Why do you believe your “bundle of rights” has more rights in your bundle than your landlord/neighbor next door?
That is not what happens at a title company when a seller signs the deed.