March 7, 2013
To:
Vice President, Division of Student Affairs, Sunny State University
From:
Jessica Baron, Community Relations Task Force, Sunny State University
Re:
“U plus 2” Occupancy Ordinance in Gilbert, California
I. Introduction
Maintaining a positive partnership with the community of Gilbert, California is an
essential aspect of Sunny State University’s work. Without cooperation between the university
and the community, forward progress and growth would become difficult to maintain and sustain
through the next several decades. Because of the relatively small size of Gilbert, especially the
downtown area near campus, students and nonstudent community members often come into
contact with one another. Gilbert wishes to maintain its livability and attraction to working
families and business owners. The university, because of its large student population, its outreach
and cultural offerings, and the employment opportunities it provides, works in symbiosis with
the City of Gilbert to create a lovely place for both students and nonstudents to live.
However, the university may have an obligation to advocate on the part of students when
they come into conflict with the community. Recently, Gilbert established the “U plus 2”
Occupancy Ordinance (Land Use Code 3.8.16). This ordinance states:
"Occupancy in a residential dwelling unit (single-family, duplex, and multifamily) is
restricted to: one family as defined below and not more than one additional person; or
two adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one additional person." (City
of Fort Collins, 2013)
2
The city defines family as “any number of persons who are all related by blood, marriage,
adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship, and who live together as a
single housekeeping unit and share common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities.” (City
of Fort Collins, 2013) On the city’s website, legal and illegal scenarios are presented:
“Under this ordinance the following scenarios are allowed: a family (of any size), a
family (of any size) and their nanny, a family (of any size) and an exchange student, two
single parents, their kids, and a friend, or two siblings and one friend.
These are not allowed: two couples, two brothers and their 2 friends, or a family (of any
size), a caretaker, and an exchange student.” (City of Fort Collins, 2013)
Because of this ordinance, students have sometimes been unable to find suitable affordable
housing off campus. Many have been cited for violations when more than three unrelated
students were living together in the same dwelling. Several students have come to the university
for help, specifically to Student Legal Services and the Dean of Students, when their housing
falls through after receiving a citation.
It is important that we investigate the policy and legal issues surrounding this conflict and
make recommendations for action on the part of the institution. The Community Relations Task
Force has taken on this charge, among others, when it comes to learning how we can best
support our students and maintain strong relationships with the larger community. In order to
both maintain a positive relationship with the City of Gilbert and support students, we must be
prepared to knowledgably discuss the various conflicts that town and gown may encounter. In
this memo, the Community Relations Task Force will discuss the various policy issues that
should be considered in light of the “U plus 2” law, outline legal issues related to this ordinance
3
through case law, legal research, other sources of law, offer recommendations for action on the
part of the institution, and discuss further implications.
II. Policy/Educational/Administrative Issues and Questions
Before we consider how to handle the difficulty students may be having with this
ordinance, it is important to analyze how we already advocate for students off campus to
examine if there is policy precedent with possible areas for improvement. At Sunny State
University, one office currently works between students and the Gilbert community, Student
Legal Services. Part of the Student Life alignment, Student Legal Services offers legal advice,
writes letters on behalf of students who find themselves in legal difficulty, and refers students to
private attorneys when they are in need of legal counsel in matters that lie outside of the scope of
the office. The lawyers in Student Legal Services will not represent a student in a court of law
and, therefore, they act almost exclusively in advisory roles. After students consult with Student
Legal Services, they are responsible to resolve the issue primarily on their own or in concert with
a referral attorney. Student Legal Services consults with students on a broad range of topics,
including personal injury, consumer issues, credit problems, criminal charges, wills and powers
of attorney, as well as housing conflicts. Therefore, we do already advocate for students in
housing disputes that may involve eviction notices or landlord negligence. However, this
advocacy currently exists in a limited capacity without a Sunny State representative engaging
directly with any outside party or with the community.
Is advocating further regarding housing an ethical obligation of our institution?
Analyzing our mission and values will help us to determine whether we should become more
involved in our students’ off campus housing conflicts. As part of our mission, vision, and values
statements, the institution has included a document titled, “Principles of Community”
4
(University of California Santa Cruz, 2012) to further explicate our commitments and goals as an
educational institution that exists within the broader community of the City of Gilbert, the United
States, and the world. We have outlined seven ideals that we strive toward, including diverse,
caring, and just (UCSC, 2012). These three ideals call on Sunny State University to support and
advocate for students in the face of possible injustice, as well as in situations that may hamper
diversity or show a lack of care on the part of the institution. Our overall mission further builds
on this sense of responsibility: “Sunny State University is a leading research institution with a
tradition of innovation in the education of students that is built on the values of social and
environmental responsibility” (UCSC, 2012). This emphasis on social responsibility, justice, care,
and diversity suggests that we should do more to advise and advocate for students who are faced
with conflicts in the Gilbert, California community.
If we do have an ethical obligation, based on our stated mission and values, to advocate
for students regarding this ordinance, then it is imperative that we ask about the policy,
procedures, and staff involved in this process. To whom should we refer the students who find
themselves without housing after a “U plus 2” citation? Should we increase the scope of our
Student Legal Services office so that our lawyers mediate and argue on behalf of our students in
the community? Would this expansion of duties require more lawyers on staff, and could these
university representatives create conflict between SSU and the City of Gilbert? We must
consider the best ways to answer these policy questions in light of the “U plus 2” ordinance. One
way to generate ideas is by looking to peer institutions for guidance. Several have more
extensive bridges between students and community, in addition to a Legal Services advising
office.
5
Colorado State University has created the Office of Off-Campus Life (OCL), a
department within Student Life, with the stated mission:
“Off-Campus Life is a vibrant office that serves the community by being: facilitators of
life-long learning, mutually beneficial relationships, involvement, life transitions, and
connections between people and resources; advocates of inclusive and supportive
environments, personal development and civic engagement; educators of students’ rights
and responsibilities, life skills, campus and community resources, and diversity
awareness” (Colorado State University, 2013).
OCL fulfills its mission by providing programming and services to students, educating on
community housing options, as well as other community related issues that students may have,
assisting students with topics ranging from off campus transportation to pets. OCL employs three
full-time professional staff members, in addition to several student workers, to support this
programming. One of these professional staff members is a Community Liaison. This position is
funded in partnership with the City of Fort Collins and is the result of a committee made up of
both university and city leaders (CSU, 2013).
The University of Colorado, Boulder, operates the Off-Campus Housing &
Neighborhood Relations office, and employs three full-time staff members plus an attorney to
assist with housing legal issues (Regents of the University of Colorado, 2011). This office
maintains a partnership with the City of Boulder court system, so that if students receive a ticket
in the city, the Community Outreach Specialist is notified, and she can connect with the student
regarding what to expect when they go to court, offering support and guidance. The office also
sponsors several community-related programs and off-campus housing fairs.
6
Kent State University created a new position in 2010 titled the “University-Community
Liaison”, who works under the alignment of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (Kent
State University, 2013). The intended initiatives of this position include linking the various
constituents within the university to the various government entities of the City of Kent. The
staff member in this new position publishes a periodic newsletter on the progress of community
relations-related initiatives to keep students, staff, and faculty informed.
At the student level, the University of Iowa Student Government assigns one of the
executive officers to be a liaison to the local City Council (University of Iowa Student
Government, n.d.). This student represents the student body on the City Council, voicing
opinions regarding the operations and policies of the city government, and informs the campus
community and student body about any city issues that may impact their lives.
Based on these examples, it may be wise to consider a broader way for Sunny State
University to engage with students and with the Gilbert, California community, facilitating better
communication and relationships between the two entities. Additionally, the institution should
prioritize prevention strategies over support strategies after the fact. Are there preventative ways
to work with students, rather than only after a citation and/or eviction notice is given? How can
we support and educate students beforehand so that they are not met with citations and housing
difficulties in light of this local ordinance? What strategies can we employ as an educational
institution to inform students of the law? These are questions which should be addressed soon, in
order to prevent more strident town/gown conflict. On the other hand, should we consider
providing more low-cost housing options on campus in order to take the housing burden off of
the community?
7
Legally, the constitutionality of the ordinance may be in question, particularly as it relates
to equal protection under the law, freedom of association, and discrimination based on national
origin. These concepts emerge because ordinances such as this one have been challenged using
these arguments. Martos (2010) looked at quality of life ordinances, of which the “U plus 2”
qualifies, as veiled attempts to discriminate against immigrant populations that “target the
perceived effects of immigration rather than immigration itself” (p. 2108). Challenging these
ordinances relies on equal protection claims associated with the First Amendment that are
difficult to prove unless the ordinance explicitly states how it impacts a particular sub-population
based on a demographic category (Martos, 2010). However, as we examine possible solutions to
these conflicts between the students and the community, including challenging the law, we
should also be aware of the consequences of more forceful advocacy. We should consider how
the community already supports the institution and what could be lost if the institution and the
community were in conflict. Any forceful advocacy stances must take into consideration the
possibility that we could be endangering the strong ties we currently have with our local
government.
III. Legal Issues
The Community Relations Task Force has engaged in legal research to examine if this
ordinance can be legally challenged. Based on this research, we may find that the ordinance
discriminates in some way, but there may not be any legal basis to challenge it. However, even if
challenging it is a possibility, it may not be the best option for the institution, considering our
relationship with the community. We will recommend, based on the legal research and the
questions of policy specific to our institution, several action items.
Housing Occupancy Ordinance Challenges:
8
Village of Belle Terre Et Al. v. Boraas Et Al., 416 U.S. 1 (1974)
This U.S. Supreme Court case overturned a Second Circuit Appeals Court ruling that
ruled in favor of several appellee homeowners and tenants. In the Appeals Court case (39 L. Ed.
2d. 797), an injunction was granted against a local ordinance in effect in the Village of Belle
Terre, New York. This local ordinance was very similar to the “U plus 2” law, in fact, even more
restrictive, allowing no more than two unrelated persons to live together in a single-family
dwelling. The Appeals Court believed that this ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. In the six-bedroom house in question, six people who were unrelated lived
together and shared household duties. The six were students at the nearby State University of
New York, Stony Brook. The tenants looked at other housing options, but single apartments
were unaffordable to them, and they enjoyed each other’s company as roommates.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the ordinance violated
“no ‘fundamental’ right guaranteed by the Constitution”. In a dissenting opinion, Justice
Marshall believed that ordinances such as this “deprive [people] of equal protection of the laws”
and cited the students’ involved in the case “fundamental rights of association and privacy
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments”. He goes on to say,
“Zoning authorities properly concern themselves with the uses of land – with, for
example, the number and kind of dwellings to be constructed in a certain neighborhood
or the number of persons who can reside in those dwellings. But zoning authorities
cannot validly consider who those persons are, what they believe, or how they choose to
live, whether they are Negro or white, Catholic or Jew, Republican or Democrat, married
or unmarried.”
9
In light of these opinions, the outcome of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas suggests that
occupancy laws such as these are currently considered constitutional. The dissenting opinion,
however, provides possible legal leeway to challenge ordinances like these in the future.
Defining Family:
Since the notion of family and the difference between related and unrelated persons was
discussed in the previous case, case law can help us to determine what the courts define to be a
legal family.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
In this case, which first saw a courtroom in 1932, the Supreme Court found a housing
ordinance to be an undue intrusion into the definition of family. Moore lived in a home in East
Cleveland, Ohio with her son and two grandsons, who were first cousins. While one grandson
was the child of the son who also lived in the home, the other grandson was the child of Moore’s
daughter who had died. She was criminally convicted of violating a local ordinance that
restricted use of single-family homes to related persons and strictly defined those relations to the
“nuclear family”. The Court found that this ordinance violated Moore’s constitutional rights to
due process and liberty, especially concerning the “sanctity of the family”. Balancing the city’s
goals associated with the ordinance of reducing overcrowding and minimizing traffic, as well as
preventing a burden on East Cleveland’s schools, with the rights of the individual, the Court
found that the rights of the individual homeowner won out, defining family more broadly to
include extended family members.
This case expands on the definition of family and could have implications for expanding
upon what it means to be related that ordinances such as the “U plus 2” law put into effect. In the
Court’s opinion, “the ‘extended’ form is especially familiar among black families.
10
“We may suppose that this reflects the truism that black citizens, like generations of
white immigrants before them, have been victims of economic and other disadvantages
that would worsen if they were to abandon extended, for nuclear, living patterns”.
It could be argued that certain demographic groups tend to consider extended family members
and friends, who are not commonly thought of as related to them, as members of their families.
Freedom of Association:
In the Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, the concept of the Freedom of Association was
cited as a possible reason to reject ordinances such as the “U plus 2” law, as they restrict with
whom one can share a home. Therefore, it can be useful to examine a case that established clear
boundaries regarding Freedom of Association.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
The Virginia State Bar took the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen to court after learning
that the Brotherhood was recommending specific lawyers to its members. The Bar believed these
actions to be an unauthorized practice of law for an organization and that they amounted to the
solicitation of legal business, which is prohibited. However, the Court ruled that the members’
rights were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
specifically in that the fraternal nature of the union permits members to “talk together freely as to
the best course to follow” and includes “the right to select a spokesman from their number who
could be expected to give the wisest counsel”. Related to the “U plus 2” ordinance, this case
implies that a challenge could be made against the ordinance based on the argument that
restricting housing to related individuals also restricts citizens’ Freedom of Association.
Regulation of Local Zoning Ordinances:
11
Local zoning ordinances have been challenged in the courts over the last one hundred
years. The following cases can help us to determine what is possible and/or likely in challenging
these types of laws in the court system.
Village of Euclid Et Al. v. Ambler Realty Company, 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
This landmark case was cited in many of the zoning ordinance related cases and
established a precedent for the limitations of the courts regarding the jurisdiction of local law,
with implications for most other zoning ordinances to come after it. The landowner challenged
the Village of Euclid’s zoning laws, which prohibited him from building an industrial structure
on his property; he argued “the ordinance operated to reduce the normal value of his property
and to deprive him of liberty and property without the due process of law”. The ruling of the
Court found no violations of the U.S. Constitution in the ordinance and decided that the Village
of Euclid, Ohio had the right to regulate districts if those regulations could positively impact the
health and safety of the community. As long as the ordinance was not deemed “arbitrary and
unreasonable”, the Court determined that local zoning ordinances, including the one before it,
should not be scrutinized. The case set a precedent for courts around the country to keep out of
arguments over local ordinances generally, especially zoning laws. Therefore, even if we were to
attempt a challenge to Gilbert’s local ordinance, it may be unlikely that the case is heard at all.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge Et Al., 277 U.S. 183 (1928)
Similarly, this U.S. Supreme Court case, heard just two years later, regarded local zoning
laws, yet with an opposite outcome. In this case, the landowner argued that his due process rights
were violated when a local land rezoning effectively eliminated the value of his property. The
Court found the zoning regulations to be “arbitrary and unreasonable” in terms of how they
applied to this particular landowner’s tract of land and decided that the land in question could not
12
reasonably be used for residential purposes, although residential use was the only allowable use
for the land. Therefore, winning a challenge against a local zoning ordinance is difficult, but if
the ordinance can be shown to be “arbitrary and unreasonable”, then the courts will intervene.
Landing Development Corporation v. City of Myrtle Beach, 285 S. C. 216 (1985)
This South Carolina State Supreme Court case was decided against the City of Myrtle
Beach. The City of Myrtle Beach argued that their zoning laws prohibited short-term rentals in
the neighborhood in question. The Landing Development Corporation leased condominiums that
were owned by various homeowners to vacationers on a short-term basis. Upon examination of
the ordinance itself, the State Supreme Court’s opinion was that the ordinance in question did not
define what is meant by “permanent occupancy”. As part of the investigation, the court also
found that the administrator in charge of issuing business licenses told the owner of the
corporation that rentals were permissible. Therefore, the court’s judgment was that the Landing
Development Corporation could not reasonably know that short-term rentals were not permitted.
Because the corporation had already invested large sums of money into the business of preparing
these condominiums for short-term rental with the understanding that this was allowable under
the local law, the court ruled that they must be issued the business license and permitted to
operate in this location. This case speaks to us of poorly written and/or poorly interpreted
ordinances. In our local situation, we should carefully examine the language of the “U plus 2”
law and ask promptly about any vagaries we find.
New Haven Property Owners Association v. City of New Haven, 288 Conn. 181 (2008)
In this recent case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the City of New
Haven in this zoning dispute. The local ordinance required licensing and inspection for certain
residential rental properties, and the New Haven Property Owners Association believed these
13
requirements to be in violation of property and due process rights. The Court disagreed,
believing that the requirements of the City did not deprive the property owners of any property
interest and provided ample due process, including an appeal procedure, if a violation was found
after an inspection. The facts of this case continue to illustrate that local ordinances are difficult
to challenge, even if they require periodic interior inspections of private rentals by the local
government.
Discriminatory Housing Laws and Tenant Rights:
Examining cases that deal with the rights of tenants and whether housing ordinances or
requirements are discriminatory can help us to understand the case law regarding our students’
rights.
Kennedy Park Homes Association, Inc. v. City of Lackawanna, 436 F.2d 108 (1970)
The Kennedy Park Homes Association was planning on constructing low-income housing
that would house primarily minority families. After this proposal came to light, the city rezoned
the land in question for recreational use only, prohibiting the construction project. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the rezoning was in violation of the Civil Rights Act (42
U.S.C.S. Sec. 1983) and the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.S. Sec. 3601) because the evidence
showed that the rezoning laws were passed to prevent minority families from living in the
community. Because the Kennedy Park Homes Association was able to prove that the zoning
regulations were directly intended to prevent a particular protected class from obtaining housing,
the court intervened in this local ordinance. If we were to challenge the “U plus 2” law with
proof such as this, we could be successful.
Provo City v. Hansen, 585 P.2d. 461 (1978)
14
Several years later, this Utah Supreme Court case dealt with a similar ordinance in a
different manner. The homeowner rented his home to between seven and eleven single students
over a period of time; however, a local ordinance only permitted four unrelated renters in a
single home. The argument for the appellant was that other properties were in violation of the
ordinance but not required to conform, as Hansen was. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the City, believing that Hansen had not proven that other homeowners were in the same situation
yet given a pass on the ordinance. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Ellett believed that the
Appellant, Hansen, had proven that enforcement of the codes was arbitrary, only triggered by
complaints, and therefore, could be discriminatory.
The question here is not the ordinance itself, but the equal application of that ordinance
across different groups and individuals. This question could come up in our situation in Gilbert,
California, as various community members in specific neighborhoods may prefer not to have
students living in their midst. If we find that the “U plus 2” law is only arbitrarily enforced after
examining individual situations of students and other homeowners in the neighborhood, we may
want to address this unequal enforcement with local officials.
Elliott v. City of Athens, 960 F.2d 975 (1992)
In this case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Appellant
landowners, who wanted to build a group home for recovering alcoholics, challenged a decision
in district court that the City of Athens was within their rights to limit the number of unrelated
occupants. The Court of Appeals ruled to affirm the decision of the lower courts. They stated that
the argument of the Appellants, the ordinance violating the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.
3601) was not proven. Citing Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, the court ruled that the City of
Athens was within the law to regulate the number of unrelated persons, without regulating the
15
number of related persons, to live in a single dwelling. The court went on to say that they had the
obligation to, “strike a balance between a municipality’s interest in maintaining the residential
character of a particular area and the interests of the handicapped in remaining free of a zoning
restriction having some disparate impact”. The court chose to interpret the language of the Fair
Housing Act narrowly, allowing the City of Athens its right to regulate zoning laws in a
reasonable way. The implications of this case for the “U plus 2” law would arise if there was a
citation of a particular home in which members of a protected class resided, yet the challenge is
to prove that discrimination is the cause of the citation.
Fair Housing Advocates Association, Inc. v. City of Richmond Heights, Ohio; City of
Warrensville Heights, Ohio; City of Fairview Park, Ohio; City of Bedford Heights,
Ohio, 209 F.3d 626 (2000)
In this case, the Fair Housing Advocates Association took several cities in Ohio to court
to challenge their occupancy ordinances, which limited how many people could reside within
homes of certain square footage. Citing the addition of familial status to the Fair Housing Act’s
protected classes in 1988, the Housing Advocates Association believed that families had the right
to live in as small a space as they preferred, making a house more affordable for larger families,
and that the ordinances, which restricted use to a certain number of occupants, discriminated
against them. The court maintained that the ordinances were “reasonable” and did not
discriminate, finding in favor of the four cities in question. Because the ordinances applied to all
residents uniformly and were created to maintain a safe and healthy quality of life, the court
would not intervene. Here again, we can see how difficult it is to challenge a local ordinance,
even when a demographic group of persons is stated as protected in a federal statute.
16
Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center Et Al. v. St. Bernard Parish Et Al.,
641 F. Supp. 2d 563 (2009)
Similar to Kennedy Park Homes Association v. Lackawanna, this U.S. district case found
a violation of the Fair Housing Act in the enactment by St. Bernard Parish of a moratorium upon
building any multi-family housing units. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and based on the
evidence presented, the court believed that the intent of the moratorium was discriminatory in
nature and that this moratorium disparately impacted racial minorities. In addition to the
moratorium on new development, St. Bernard Parish prohibited homeowners from renting their
properties to anyone other than “blood relatives” without a permit. The court believed the intent
and the effect of the ordinance and the moratorium to disproportionally impact African
Americans, violating the Fair Housing Act. If Sunny State University were to challenge the “U
plus 2” ordinance, we might need to show that it disproportionally impacts a particular protected
class based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status.
Immigrant Discriminatory Code Arguments & Other Sources of Law:
There are legal scholars who believe that ordinances that regulate the living situations of
people are discriminatory, particularly regarding national origin and familial status. Cited earlier,
Martos (2010) terms these “quality of life ordinances”.
“Maximum-occupancy ordinances are one such type of local immigration regulation.
Some city leaders have expressed concern over growing immigrant populations and
responded by passing new ordinances or increasing penalties to limit the number of
people that may live in a single residence” (Martos, 2010, p. 2109).
Guzman (2010) argued “occupancy ordinances … represent the greatest challenge to contesting
AIHOs [Anti-Immigration Housing Ordinances] because courts are deferential in their treatment
17
of such ordinances” (p. 414). Guzman (2010) believed that the Fair Housing Act should help in
challenging these discriminatory ordinances and codes but that the courts have interpreted the
FHA narrowly. Using the Fair Housing Act to bring a case against a local housing ordinance, a
plaintiff must show a causal relationship between the ordinance and any discriminatory effect, as
well as prove that the ordinance intentionally discriminates. This relationship and intent can be
difficult to prove if there is no discriminatory language in the ordinance, even if the code is
plainly disproportionally impacting groups based on national origin.
According to Morales (1996), Congress has attempted to limit the reach of the FHA (42
U.S.C.S. Sec. 3601) as it applies to occupancy standards and how those standards may
discriminate against people based on familial status. Morales (1996) argued,
“few people would have questioned the appropriateness of a low income family’s
decision to have several children share a bedroom in the family house. Times have
changed … As household size and birth rates have dropped in the United States, society
has increasingly failed to accommodate families with children” (p. 103).
Although maximum occupancy standards are different than the “U plus 2” ordinance in Gilbert,
which makes no mention of limiting the size of a particular family, the aims of each type of law
are similar. Both maximum occupancy standards and unrelated persons ordinances purport to
protect the health, safety, and livability of the community, yet may have more nefarious
consequences.
The Fair Housing Act (42 U.C.S.C. Sec. 3601) emerged as part of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 (42 U.C.S.C. Sec. 1983), which prohibits depriving any person of “rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution” through law or practice of any kind at any level from
federal statute to local ordinance. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.C.S.C. Sec. 3601)
18
was to prohibit discrimination in the housing market, specifically to remove “artificial, arbitrary
and unnecessary barriers in housing when barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on basis of
impermissible characteristics”. These federal laws were put in place to prevent discrimination,
yet that discrimination must be proven in a court of law to be remedied.
Under California’s Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1161, a landlord can evict a tenant
with just 3 days notice if there is a violation of the rental agreement or an unlawful use. Under
the “U plus 2” ordinance, a landlord could describe more than three unrelated persons living
together in a single-family home as an unlawful use, substantially impacting students, who could
potentially be evicted within three days if the unlawful use is not remedied.
In light of this policy and legal research, the Community Relations Task Force would like
to make several recommendations for action to address the difficulties that students, the
community, and the institution face with the new “U plus 2” ordinance.
IV. Recommendations for Action
It seems unlikely that a challenge to the “U plus 2” in the court system would succeed,
given the case law showing that ordinances that restrict the number of unrelated persons allowed
to live in a home have passed muster at the Supreme Court level. Even if a challenge could
succeed, it is unadvisable for Sunny State University to take this battle on, as we wish to
maintain our strong ties to the local government and community. However, in order to advocate
for students, educate regarding the ordinance, and address the difficulty that students sometimes
have with the ordinance, the institution can undertake several initiatives.
First, we should establish a department separate from Student Legal Services to connect
students to the wider community, like Colorado State University’s Office of Off-Campus Life.
This department would work in conjunction with the city council, law enforcement, and local
19
community to improve and maintain strong ties between the university and the city. Advocating
on behalf of students while considering the city’s point of view, the staff in this department
would take on cases as mediators when individual students come into conflict with the
community or local government. The department would also begin an extensive marketing
campaign to inform students about the “U plus 2” law, including the implications for any
violations. Using all the marketing tools at their disposal, including print materials, web, social
media, and possible events to get the word out, this new department would attempt to prevent
citations and evictions from impacting our students before they happen.
Next, we recommend that one staff member from this department should be designated as
a Community Liaison, and this employee should be communicating the needs and desires of the
institution to the local government, communicating the needs and desires of the local government
back to upper administration at the university, and facilitating dialogue to move toward a more
harmonious community that takes both town and gown into account. It is the hope of the
Community Relations Task Force that the creation of this position may prevent conflict between
the institution and the community in the future before it happens.
The Community Relations Task Force’s final recommendation is to establish one floor of
one residence hall (a maximum of 10 single rooms) as a short-term, low-cost emergency housing
option for those students who are evicted from homes because of the “U plus 2” law or other
landlord conflicts. This vital support for students in times of serious distress would increase the
likelihood that these students will persist and succeed. Although this recommendation entails a
small loss of revenue to keep these rooms open for emergencies, we believe that the returns in
student retention will outweigh the costs, as students will know that the safety net of on-campus
20
housing is there in an emergency. Therefore, they will be more relaxed about the security of their
housing and can focus their energies on succeeding in their coursework.
V. Conclusions, Implications, Questions for Further Exploration
This investigation of the “U plus 2” ordinance in Gilbert, California and its implications
for Sunny State University has been most enlightening to the Community Relations Task Force.
However, more work can be done to further understand the complexities of the relationship
between students, institution, and the community in which we all live. The Task Force has
several questions that it would like to examine next in order to continue this important work.

What other conflicts between town and gown are impacting our students’ experience and
success?

How does law enforcement, both local and campus, play into the complexity of these
relationships?

Who should be the primary contact in the local community in order to facilitate a positive
and productive experience for both the institution and the city?

How can we grow with the city and not in spite of the city? In other words, how can we
both grow and expand to create an amazing community in which to live in the future?
These questions, among others, will guide the Community Relations Task Force in our coming
months of research and as we reach out to community members.
After examining all the evidence regarding the “U plus 2” ordinance, we understand that,
even if we find the ordinance to be questionable in some ways, the city is within its rights to
implement it. However, we do need to be vigilant regarding how the ordinance is applied and
must periodically check to ensure that the ordinance is not applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily.
What we can do to best advocate for our students is to educate them about the ordinance in
21
advance, so that conflicts will not often arise. When and if they do arise, the institution’s new
department of Off-Campus Life will advocate and mediate on behalf of students in the
community, having established strong ties to the pertinent government agents. In the event of an
emergency, the institution will have a place that a student can live temporarily for a low-cost, in
order to facilitate the student’s safety, learning, and growth.
22
References
City of Fort Collins. (2013). Retrieved from:
http://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/occupancy.php
Colorado State University. (2013). Retrieved from: http://ocl.colostate.edu
Guzman, D. E. (2010). ‘There be no shelter here’: Anti-immigrant housing ordinances and
comprehensive reform. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, 400-439.
Kent State University. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.kent.edu/einside/index.cfm
Martos, S. D. (2010). Coded codes: Discriminatory intent, modern political mobilization, and
local immigration ordinances. New York University Law Review 85, 2099-2137.
Morales, J. (1996). The emergence of fair housing protections against arbitrary occupancy
standards. La Raza Law Journal 9, 103-130.
Regents of the University of Colorado. (2011). Retrieved from: http://ocss.colorado.edu
University of California Santa Cruz. (2012). Retrieved from:
http://chancellor.ucsc.edu/vision.html and http://www.ucsc.edu/about/principlescommunity.html
University of Iowa Student Government, n.d. Retrieved from:
http://uisg.uiowa.edu/branches/executive/alec-bramel-city-council-liaison/
Table of Cases
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
Elliott v. City of Athens, 960 F.2d 975 (1992)
Fair Housing Advocates Association, Inc. v. City of Richmond Heights, Ohio; City of
Warrensville Heights, Ohio; City of Fairview Park, Ohio; City of Bedford Heights, Ohio,
209 F.3d 626 (2000)
23
Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center Et Al. v. St. Bernard Parish Et Al., 641 F.
Supp. 2d 563 (2009)
Kennedy Park Homes Association, Inc. v. City of Lackawanna, 436 F.2d 108 (1970)
Landing Development Corporation v. City of Myrtle Beach, 285 S. C. 216 (1985)
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
Nectow v. City of Cambridge Et Al., 277 U.S. 183 (1928)
New Haven Property Owners Association v. City of New Haven, 288 Conn. 181 (2008)
Provo City v. Hansen, 585 P.2d. 461 (1978)
Village of Belle Terre Et Al. v. Boraas Et Al., 416 U.S. 1 (1974)
Village of Euclid Et Al. v. Ambler Realty Company, 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Statutes and Regulations
California’s Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1161
Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.C.S.C. Sec. 1983
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.S. Sec. 3601
U Plus 2, Land Use Code 3.8.16. Retrieved from:
http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/article3.htm#div3d8