HF 161

An almost overlooked issue at last night's city council meeting was the announcement of the passage of  HF161, a bill in the Iowa House of Representatives that would eliminate the ability of cities to limit occupancy of homes based on family status. Most of U-Heights is zoned single family meaning a family of related individuals, regardless of size, may live in a house. By our zoning definition, however, no more than two unrelated adults comprise a family. As our city attorney observed last night, this is the bedrock of all of our zoning and housing regulations. I wrote about this two years ago when the same bill was in the Iowa House HF184 Do Something?

Check this story in this morning's Press Citizen for details.

Bill would end some single-home roommate restrictions

I would urge all of you to consider writing to our senators to express your feelings on this topic. A similar bill SF458 has the important difference of NOT eliminating the non-related standard for zoning. Here is information I shared with people at the council meeting last night:

Local Senators

joe@joebolkcom.org                   Johnson

robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov     Johnson

Kevin.Kinney@legis.iowa.gov        Johnson/Washington

rob.hogg@legis.iowa.gov             Linn

liz.mathis@legis.iowa.gov             Linn

wally.horn@legis.iowa.gov           Linn

Ask senators to oppose SSB1218, or SF458 or similar bills to HF161. The key is not to limit the ability of cities to restrict, via zoning, the number of unrelated adults that can occupy a property.

Points to mention: As a community of small homes (2 bedrooms, many under 1600 square feet) and narrow streets we would simply not be able to accommodate the amount of pressure this would put on our town. Street storage of autos, problems with garbage collection, and general wear on property are all problems exacerbated by increasing the number of adults living in a single property.

Other senators

Majority leader         mike.gronstal@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    bill.dotzler@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    matt.mccoy@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    amanda.ragan@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Majority Leader:    mary.jo.wilhelm@legis.iowa.gov

Republican Leader:    bill.dix@legis.iowa.gov

Republican Whip:      jack.whitver@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: rick.bertrand@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: randy.feenstra@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: tim.kapucian@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: charles.schneider@legis.iowa.gov

Assistant Republican Leader: dan.zumbach@legis.iowa.gov

Find all Iowa Senators:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/senate

HF 184 Good News... For Now

I got an email from a U-Heights citizen yesterday. He had emailed our Iowa House 86 Representative, Mary Mascher, about HF 184 yesterday. Below is the reply he received back from her:

We need to continue to contact House members, focusing on those outside of Johnson County, and urge them not to support HF 184. Since Republicans control the House, talking to them is recommended, but communicating with anyone is good. It's pretty easy to guess that House Leadership will continue to press members to support the bill, and bring it to the floor when they think it will pass.
Once again:

Here is the link to House members by county with their email addresses:

Iowa House

An interesting sidenote is to read which lobbyists have indicated they are in favor or opposed to HF 184:

 Lobbyist Declarations for HF 184

  
If HF 184 does not pass the full House AND a Senate Committee by April 5th , it will not have met the second funnel date and would in essence be dead for this legislative session.

Many thanks to our citizens who contacted legislators!

HF 184 Do Something?

It's not often that we in U-Heights get really riled up about the legislature in Des Moines. However at last night's city council meeting everyone was in agreement that House File 184 is bad for our town. The bill would eliminate the ability of cities to regulate occupancy through zoning codes. I had written about this last month: Interesting News From Des Moines and What It Means for U-Heights

(photo courtesy iowahouse.org)

Most of U-Heights is zoned R-1 single family. Our zoning codes says that in R-1 zones a family is people related by blood or marriage, or up to 2 UNRELATED adults. So an R-1 home could have:

•  a parent or two plus 5 children
• 2 parents a grandparent and a child
• two brothers and a roommate
• 2 roommates. 

The bill would eliminate all of this and the only limits on occupancy would probably be related to the size of the lot or structure.

If you agree that this would be bad for town I'd urge you to contact members of the Iowa House ASAP it is possible that the bill will be debated on the floor as early as 3/13/2013.

Here is the link to House members by county with their email addresses:

Iowa House

The Iowa League of Cities also opposes this bill. Here is what they had to say:

Action Step: Please contact your Representatives today to oppose HF184, using the League’s talking points to highlight home rule and the purpose of these ordinances. The main supporters of the bill, the landlords, are arguing that this is a property rights issue for landlords who own the rental property. You should stress this is also a property rights issue for the neighbor who bought their property with the expectation of living in a single family neighborhood--not next to rental properties with many renters who can cause congestion and other issues and disturb the character of their neighborhoods.

Here is some sample language I sent to several House members:

Dear Representative XXXX,

As a city councilor for University Heights, a small town of 1,000 adjacent

to the University of Iowa, I would urge you to oppose HF184. This bill

would be very detrimental to our town's well being.

We have a significant number of rental properties in town and we work had

to welcome new residents. We know from experience that many of our long

term citizens first lived in U-Heights as students, loved that experience,

and return to us later in life. However, by not allowing communities to

establish zoning regulations for the benefit of our citizens we will face

a situation where the density of residents would overwhelm our narrow

streets and small infrastructure.

Ninety percent of our homes were constructed before 1970, 57% were built

before 1960. Many homes are small bungalows or mid-century modern ranch

homes of less than 1,500 square feet. Allowing us to regulate the number

of unrelated adults per household is the simplest way for a very small

community to preserve its quality of life and provide benefits for every

citizen.

Please consider everyone's rights and vote no on HF 184

-Mike Haverkamp

 University Heights