Tonight at City Council, after a further discussion on the recent zoning amendment that caused a stir still boiling today, I asked two ordinances be prepared for the next meeting. One to restore language recently deleted concerning renting to non family members in single family homes, and the other to amend the code's definition of family to make it a single declaration of people living as a single housekeeping unit.
My goal is to introduce the ordinances at the April 1 meeting and then have them referred to the Planning Board for a review based on what we have learned of late, including the statement by the Board chair that she no longer supported the original move to delete the words literally heard round the world.
The original action was in response to a constituent complaint about multiple residents living in a house on Thompson Boulevard who were not related. Renting out an extra bedroom had been considered an acceptable accessory use, but the unintended result of Council action was a furor over judging lifestyles and a naming of the action a "roommate law."
It wasn't, per se, but Council action struck a nerve, unleashing a wave of protest in social media and subjecting the constituent to all sorts of harassment.
20 comments:
Yeah saw Jeff on the news,so it was all a big misunderstanding and it was NOT all in response to one woman's complaints just a simple reworking of the code language.Mmhmm,that may be rain pattering down my back but smells suspiciously like urine..
Mayor, why don't you just admit that you hate anything that remotely resembles a traditional family and are jealous of others success.
You are living the lifestyle you chose so enjoy it, embrace it, live it up! It is the envy of bachelors, partiers and twentysomethings everywhere, just stop trying to interfere with people who choose to take the more conventional approach.
Stop misinterepeting the zoning change, you know exactly what it is. Just man up and admit it.
“How I saw the Meeting at City Council”
Last’s night’s meeting of the ‘City Council’ at which I spoke to need to revisit the Code change, affirmed to me that local government has the ability to take a second look when necessary. A look that was urgently needed here, as it pertains to the Zoning Code change. It of course goes without saying that the WDT was instrumental in securing that second look, along with Mayor Jeff Graham, who was able to operate from the ‘Super’ objective, and weigh in on the overall effect of the Zoning Code change, as opposed to merely looking at what was intended by City Council members. The City Council’s vote to change the then existing Zoning Code in Watertown, NY last month, opened the door to City of Watertown being labeled as intolerant and that had to be addressed and rectified by City Council.
I’m convinced that Councilmen, Smith and Butler and Burns, hadn’t intended to bring intolerance, as manifested by the amended Zoning Code change into the forefront, but to the contrary I believe that Councilmen Smith and Butler made convincing appeals that that was in fact not the case, or their intention in voting Yes to a Zoning Code change. They attempted last night to have the public understand that they merely intended to address the concerns of homeowners in Zone A as a whole and not just any one specific home owner.
In so doing they hoped to address the key concern of all homeowners throughout the City of Watertown, that their investment in their homes isn’t undermined by the ad-hoc, or arbitrary misuse of housing in Zoning District A, that would allow anyone to purchase a home, and then convert it into a rental property; or boardinghouse by actual design or unintentional consequence. They were in fact primarily concerned with maintaining the intended use for property owners in general, as it relates to how a property is used after it is purchased in Zoning District A. As we know that got lost in the shuffle, but to blame the WDT or media in general is wrong of City Council, who must accept responsibility for the confusion that ensued with a vaguely worded Zoning Code change.
As the Mayor was able to point out the issue of the actual intent of City Council members had fallen victim to the perception of Watertown residents, that many homeowners in general were ignored by City Council. The truth is every homeowner is concerned with their ability to protect their investment. The fact is homeowners often seek to utilize their property creatively to maximize their investment after purchase, in ways that aren’t contrary to the Communities interest. These uses often instead serve the communities interest, by making affordable room rentals available to a student or worker, etc. As was suggested by Kenneth A. Mix, the city’s planning and community development coordinator, the State felt the language was indeed flawed and needed to be revisited, which will now take place.
Mike Flynn ‘Middle Class Mike’
People are getting all bunged up in the wrong aspect of this. I don't understand why there is an insistence of putting a label on everything. The council was not trying to "redefine the definition of family". The whole purpose of the zoning amendment was to stop boarding houses from cropping up in neighborhoods that they aren't suppose to be in.
It's very sad that it the norm today for people to live outside their means. I suggest that people take a good, hard look at their finances before jumping into home ownership. Not everyone needs to own a single family home. If it is unaffordable for you, look at other options, like a two family home. Owning a two family residence is a good way to start home ownership as you have the rental income from the other unit to help pay your mortgage. Down the road, if/when one has their life and finances in order, a single family home could be purchased and the two family home kept as an income-generating property. Live smart.
I sincerely hope that council does not cave to the poop stirring, and leaves the zoning amendment the way that it is.
You know what people don't touch on in the whole deal? The man in question most like bought a house in the wrong hood. He bought a house way over his pocket. Then he thought what the heck let's just move in a few people and see what happens around here. He just bought the wrong house. It is a sad day for him. No evil intent. Just a fact. He would have been better off anywhere else in the city. He should have considered all the options when making the purchase. That I believe is not the lady's fault. He just didn't weigh it all before signing on the dot. It has been that way for 20 some years in America. Sign it and don't worry the bank tells you. Take the time and read the small print, know if certain rules in that hood will screw you, and be ready for any change you might have in life before signing.
The one point that I have failed to see be made is that it is a bank's responsibility to decide if you can afford a house or not. I have bought several pieces of property in my life and the bank is always the one to decide whether I can "afford" the property or not. Whether you live in Residential A,B,C or choose to live in the country, the bank always has the final say as long as you are going to have a mortgage.
City council is offering up this lame excuse for why they amended the ordinance and frankly, I don't believe a word of it.
It is my belief that anyone living in Residential A that rents a room out is doing so to either to take the edge off their mortgage so they have a few extra bucks each month to spend or is just utilizing the extra space they have available for something productive. As long as they have adequate parking available, why shouldn't they do this?
Codes should be in place to deal with excessive cars in the driveway, street etc. Smith, Buttler and Burns made a quick decision for a "friend" and didn't really think this one through. I am disappointed that the city's attorneys didn't stop this one in it's tracks. How much money has been wasted when you start adding up the staff time of just the city employees that have had to field e-mails, research the legality of the amended ordinance etc? What a waste of resources.
As I watched the news coverage this morning I was struck by how stressed Mr. Smith is looking. Too bad. There he sat next to the attorney that is supposed to protect the city and its council from making bad decision and yet there they were listening once again to the fact that this is unenforceable. They should look stressed, very stressed.
Its the banks responsibility to determine if you can afford your house?
Actually, Obama and Cuomo took that responsibility from the banks, using the court system and agency law, back in the 90's
I like to use my own judgment, as to whether I can afford something or not.
Don't people get it? State st. had some beautiful homes years ago. Look at what's happened.
Now it's Thompson Blvd or any other nice street where people who live there do so because of the zoning law.
Just remember this, you get lax on the zoning rules, nice homes/areas will begin to look like downtown Utica.
what 10:07 said..
The zooning law should stay in place for the security of the people living in a house together.
Cynicaly speaking: If it does not matter no more how much people living in a house together, then the city should go ahead and nix all the occupancy laws for public places too.
It does not matter how or if they are related.
It should matter how much people are living in a one family house due to security and fire emergency laws and for the sake of the neigborhood.
In this city there are three bed room, one bath roomhouses occupied with up to twenty people of generational wellfare families plus friends who stay occationally over night, not to mention the drug traffic, blocking drive ways, trashing the neigbhorhood and so on.
For the sake of the neighborhood and security, the zooning laws should stay in place for HOW MUCH People could stay in a house, not how and if they are related.
Even in LA, from which Drew Carey called Watertown people "dumbasses" are Zooning laws as how much people can habitate together.
Just because it's "Thompson Blvd." doesn't make it special.
The "Roommate Law" is discriminatory, plain and simple.
That's my point in it all. The dude couldn't afford to live in that hood. He never had a chance. he needs to sell now and move into a hood that will hug him everyday. The North-side would love the dude. Not putting it down, but that's the place for a little more western frontier type living. He made a bad choice. houses are selling right now. Sell it and drive off punching the dash board of the truck. Don't look back.
If I live in a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes, I would expect my neighbors not to pack their house full like woodchucks just because they are living outside their means. Buy what you can afford, and you will have no problems.
Perhaps Thompson Blvd. is the "hood" he wants to live in. No matter what "hood" you live in, you take a chance on your neighbor being one of two things..... good or bad. I'm sure the North Side is a not on his list of "hoods" for the simple fact of all the poisonous chemicals causing a wide range of aches and pains...furthermore, you have no idea what the "dude" can and cannot afford.
Catrancher,are you livin in south central LA or what is the fascination with hood living..on the other hand,chinatown is quite close,so you can supply them with your excess cats..
So, why didn't you print my message? I use my name. You say you do not like anons., but then you do. My comment was to some anons, to, please use plain ,no crap language when making their point. It's easy to baffle the people with b.s.. I also read,if it's correct, that Mr. Smith and Mr.Butler, used the letter "I", when referring to making decisions; I thought this was a government of the people, not I? If I struck a nerve, so be it.
Okay....State Street hood. He would be better off. Get away from the upper crust.
Don’t tell anyone, but Cat Rancher is from rural Mississippi.
@catrancher:
I live on the northside, and found your comment quiet offensive.
From your comment decent people on the north side do not deserve a peaceful and good neighborhood?
In one way you are right, nobody cares about the north side at all.
If someone on the north side would have taken on the zooning law, nobody on the City council would have cared.
We bought a house 10 years ago, when we came to this city in then a decent neighborhood on the North Side.
Since two years due to Section 8 vouches, we have neighborhood renters where are living like "woodchucks" as a poster called it.
Unfortunately this "woodchucks" doing and selling drugs, are every other week in the policereport for stealing or other petty crimes, trashing the neighborhood , blocking driveways and are a plain nusiance for us all.
On top of, it there are living till up to 16 twenty people, including lots of children, in that house on a regular basis.
This is not just a zooning law issue, this is a fire security issue too.
It is not important how or if people are related , but who many are living in a one
family house.
We are Taxpayers too. Our house values goes down, because "woodchucks" like this.
We would like to leave, but who is buying a house next to people like this?
I hope that this kind of people would getting Section 8 housing vouches in the better neighborhoods like Thompson boulvard, so people would finally getting serious with zooning laws.
But why should we but up with people like this? Just because we live on the North Side?
You don't understand me at this point North side? I love the whole city. But this dude was way over his head as far as his responsibly to the bank. He needs to sell and find a new home that he can afford. That's all. That type of house tends to be on the North side of the city. Face it, it's true.
You just stated a fact that I find funny. You don't like these kind of house set ups but you are all for this dude having one? What? You admit it right now. All you were put off by was the fact that the city can tell you to live as the law sets forth. "You can't tell me what to do!". Doesn't float anymore. Laws are for you too. They keep as you say (woodchucks) out of your hood. Stop supporting lawless bull crap and see it as it is. He messed up and needs to admit it. Find the new place and sell the old. Problem over. It might sound cruel and maybe even feeding of the rich guy's way. But it is more like how life really is. You have to have money to live in Beverly Hills.
Post a Comment