Skip to comments.Cedar Falls Conversion Ban Passes
Posted on 08/30/2014 8:07:47 AM PDT by campg
Cedar Falls conversion ban passes
August 18, 2014 10:00 pm â¢ By Mike Anderson(1) Comments Cedar Falls rental moratorium faces fight
CEDAR FALLS | City staff have finished writing a resolution to impose a six-month moratorium on new rental permits in parts of the city, but tâ¦ Read more
Councilman applies for permit to turn his home into rental
CEDAR FALLS | At-large councilman Nick Taiber has no plans to rent out his home in the Overman Park neighborhood, but on Aug. 15 he went to Ciâ¦ Read more
Cedar Falls rental housing task force looks for focus
CEDAR FALLS | Some members of a task force to address the controversial conversion of single-family homes to rental units are beginning to queâ¦ Read more
CEDAR FALLS | Packed to the walls.
Homeowners, renters and landlords filled every seat and rubbed shoulders in the doorway of City Council chambers. They were there for the moratorium.
A resolution approved by the council by a 6 to 1 vote Monday night places a six-month moratorium on the conversion of single-family homes into rental properties in the city's R1 and R2 zoned districts.
Starting today in any areas zoned for single- or double-family residences, homes cannot be converted into apartments for the next six months. The the moratorium can be extended to one year. An appeals committee can grant exemptions to citizens in cases of financial hardship.
Current rental properties will not be affected.
This isn't the first time Cedar Falls has imposed a moratorium on certain types of rentals.
In 2005, the city put a temporary moratorium on the construction of multi-family apartment complexes in the College Hill neighborhood. Developer Michael Geisler challenged the legality of that moratorium in court in 2009.
"The Supreme Court of Iowa said the moratorium was a proper exercise of the city's legislative authority," City Attorney Steve Moore said.
While the city can legally impose the moratorium, critics argue it shouldn't.
"I'd like to see a press release that says, 'Hey, you're not welcome here,'" said resident Mike Geller.
Geller was worried he would not be able to rent his home to his son within the next six months, but City Administrator Richard McAlister said he does not need a permit to rent to family.
Moore said any rental homes sold during the moratorium can remain rentals.
Council members noted they received heated emails from residents on both sides of the issue in recent days.
"A week ago I was ready to pull the plug," said Councilman Frank Darrah. "It was so divisive. Good people were saying bad things about other good people in this community."
But the conversation during Monday evening's meeting remained civil and evenly split.
Sue Schauls, vice president of the Landlords of Black Hawk, asked the council to table the moratorium for more study.
"People in their 20s to low 30s are really leaning toward being lifelong renters because they want the freedom and the ability to move around," Schauls said. "I really think that's something the task force needs to get more academic about."
Resident Mark G. Miller was one of many who supported the moratorium.
"What's happening in our city center is too many homes are changing to rentals, and that changes the neighborhood," Miller said. "A lot of these rentals are operated by Realtors and landlords who would not live next to the property they rent out. I do acknowledge we do have good landlords here who take care of their properties, and I'd hope those landlords would speak out in support of the moratorium."
Councilman Nick Taiber argued the moratorium constitutes a breach of property rights. Those on the opposite side of the issue made the same argument.
"I would also argue that I have property rights that are being intruded upon," said city resident Tony Reed. "When I go out in the morning and there's trash blowing around in my yard. When there's drunks yelling outside at 2 a.m. and I have to get up for work in a few hours. All of those are things that have happened to me. There's the old adage that your right to swing your arms around extends as far as my nose. Well, I feel like my nose has been hit a few times."
There are no legitimate "market forces" when the US feral government is pulling the strings.
That sheds a different light on the problem. A video was posted on FR some months ago about a home that was utterly destroyed by a section 8 tenant. Such destruction impacts
the value of nearby properties. Those property owners have rights too. I say that as one who is renting out my family home.
“This is about Section 8 housing “
We have a winner.
Too many rental properties = ghetto in a couple years!
Years ago, when we sold our house in town to a ner-do-well couple, one of the first things she told her kids was...”Now don’t tear this place up! We own THIS house.”
I went by it not long ago. It is the sore thumb of that neighborhood.
A friend in California rented his house to a family. When they left, the house was trashed. He found the toilet was stopped up, so that family had knocked a hole in the closet floor and used the crawl space beneath as a pit toilet.
Then there was the people near here who rented apartments. One day one of the tenants was arrested and is in jail. The owners had to bring in a roll off trash container as the house was full of trash. All the drywall had to be removed, and basically rebuilt from the ground up.
Some people are just “White-Trash”. (Opps! Is that racis?)
How conservative. NOT.
Where did I say that? Straw man much?
Stable owner occupied homes means the area isn’t likely to turn into a ghetto soon. That is just a fact.
If an area has too many rental units in relation to owner occupied homes, the property values will crash. That is also a fact.
Property rights also extend to those that don’t want section 8 to turn their neighborhood into a ghetto.
I refuse to live in or close to any city, or anywhere that has public transportation for exactly that reason.
I hope there was a lawsuit to collect damages and a big deposit to recoup some losses. Being a Landlord/property owner can be such fun and full of enrichment;-) and yes that was racist. Shame on you.
The danger with zoning laws is that gives the property rights to the government. I have seen some rather horrid zoning laws banning everything from the color of the door to the house to how many children a family may have (yes, that was a zoning law, not a HOA code).
While I understand not wanting to import the ghetto, taking away property rights of the owners is a very dangerous precedent.
“The danger with zoning laws is that gives the property rights to the government.”
I can see restrictions on the number of rental unit properties in a city/neighborhood, and don’t see it as taking property rights.
If it’s a single family home, you can live in it, sell it, or rent it.
What you couldn’t do is buy up a bunch of big old houses and make 2-3 apartments in each one. All that does is create section 8 ghetto.
Redlining is illegal and so is refusing section 8, the only option left is limiting rental units, or giving up and letting the ghetto take over.
Section 8 means it ain’t a free market anymore.
I know. The liberals blame Detoilet on whites for moving out. They are admitting to being parasites, but blaming the hosts for avoiding them.
“I refuse to live in or close to any city, or anywhere that has public transportation for exactly that reason.”
That is bull****.
Some of the priciest towns in my area,Eastern Ma,are much in demand because of the public transportation.
Live in some craphole city if you want. Ride a bus with seats covered with diseases they don’t even have names for yet. Enjoy your liberal ghetto.
Your last sentence nailed it.
We no longer have the right to free association.
When I lived in a large US city, there was an interesting way around it. I lived in a complex where you had to have a recommendation to get into. Since I didn’t know that, or any place to live, I went to a relocation specialist my company set up for me.
I didn’t notice it at first, but that system worked rather well.