State law on the relationship of tenants is focus of lawsuit

Real estate property manager Steve Myers testified Tuesday that when he rents a home to multiple tenants he does not ask if the tenants are related to each other, and he described persons who complain about such living arrangements as “the pitchfork crowd.”

Myers, a lawyer and unsuccessful candidate for mayor-president last year, has been sued by the city-parish at least three times for renting homes to unrelated residents. He countersued the city-parish last year, claiming its zoning regulation is unconstitutional. Myers argues the ordinance violates the constitutional rights of privacy, association and equal protection.

Myers testified Tuesday that he does include on his rental leases a provision of the city-parish’s Unified Development Code that says residential neighborhoods zoned A-1 must be occupied by a “single family.”

The UDC defines family as “an individual or two or more persons who are related by blood, marriage or legal adoption living together.” It stipulates that if the owner lives on the premises, up to four unrelated people can live together by joint agreement.

Myers, who has said he owns about 40 properties parishwide, many of which he rents, testified his tenants are required to place their initials next to the written provision.

“I don’t know if they’re related or not. I don’t ask if they’re related or not. I believe it’s a violation of the Fair Housing Act,” he testified at the trial of a city-parish lawsuit against him.

Frank Gremillion, senior special assistant Parish Attorney, suggested that Myers employs a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when renting properties.

“We don’t have ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ anymore,” state District Judge Janice Clark shot back with a smile. “There’s a new sheriff in town.”

After listening to several hours of testimony and arguments, Clark gave each side seven days to file post-trial written arguments. The judge did not indicate when she would issue a decision.

“It’s time for this court to re-examine the concept of ‘family,’ ” Wade Shows, one of Myers’ attorneys, told Clark at the start of the bench trial.

The single-family rule is more frequently enforced by the city-parish when three or more college students try to rent a home together, but Myers and his attorneys say the law has more far-reaching effects that target the evolving, nontraditional family structure.

Dana Berkowitz, an assistant sociology professor at LSU, testified for Myers that “the definition of ‘family’ is shifting, it’s fluid.”

“There is no single, universal definition of family,” Berkowitz said, noting that heterosexual cohabitation increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. She also said there has been an increase in those couples, as well as same-sex couples, fostering children.

Patrick Finneman, along with three male roommates, rents one of Myers’ A-1 zoned properties at 1977 Cherrydale Ave. in the University Gardens subdivision. Myers bought the home in 1994.

Finneman, a graduate school student who works part time at a mortgage company, said his roommates are young professionals and he considers all three family. He said they decided to rent the home together for “financial reasons.”

Paul Naquin, who has lived since 1957 in University Gardens on Morning Glory about five blocks from Cherrydale, testified he notified the city-parish about Myers’ alleged zoning violations.

Naquin said the concrete front yard at 1977 Cherrydale is filled with cars day and night, and there also are parties.

“I was brought up in a nice family neighborhood. I wanted to raise my family in a nice family neighborhood,” he said.

Myers, who contends rental properties do not cause property values to go down, testified that property values in University Gardens skyrocketed 200 percent between 1997 and 2012. He added that Cherrydale has seen prices soar 270 percent since 1997.

He noted that a third of the properties in University Garden are rental properties.

“Property values clearly are not affected,” he said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (8)


1) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 30/01/2013

If Amerikans would actually think about it with an open mind and not emotions, they really don't want a land of the free. What they DO want is police state-lite, as long as it meets with their approval.

2) Comment by mh1949 - 30/01/2013

I would assume if you can be told what type gun you can own and how many bullets it can hold then you can be told who can live in your house you legally purchased. Control-Control-Control.

3) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 30/01/2013

Land of the free? LOL, only in your dreams.

4) Comment by Ivy - 30/01/2013

Wow - just the idea that we can sit around and tell other people what to do with their property in the name of "keeping riff-raff out" is scary. What is "character of a community?" And who gets to decide? In one neighborhood, I saw a daiquiri shop built within a few hundred feet of a church. Granted, they're not open during the same hours, but if zoning laws are to be respected they've got to be applied uniformly. And I can't see where 4 professionals living together in a house hurts the character of a community.

5) Comment by phil - 30/01/2013

We can solve some of this by passing a law that states that houses in residential neighborhoods have to be lived in only by the people who own the house and cannot be used as rental properties. I don't think that is going to happen. Some of the same people who are pushing PUD zoning districts all over seem to be very concerned about who lives where. Maybe we need to actually outlaw PUD districts instead of seeing them increase all over town? What will that do to all of these new developers? What about HUD housing? I think if the existing law is enforced to the letter, there will be a lot of vacant homes in residential areas. How many unmarried men and women live together, just for one example. Pretty soon I guess big brother will be knocking on your door to see exactly who lives there and also search to see if your house meets all of the "codes". Just remember, a recent news article stated that a local government agency will possibly be looking for new sources of revenue in BR and one option might be fines related to code enforcement. Are you ready to kiss all of your rights goodbye? I do agree that some zoning laws might be needed to restrict the actual number of people who can live in one house and limit where you can build a bar etc.

6) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/01/2013

The problem is neither cars parked illegally or loud parties. The problem is the nosy busy body neighbor taking picture of a house and car license plates parked in somebody else's driveway. Talk about creepy - stalker. Surprised somebody didn't shoot this guy out of fear for their life or property. Total violation of privacy. When Steve Myers is done with this lawsuit against the city, he needs to seek a restraining order against Paul Naquin.

7) Comment by ScotB - 30/01/2013

It is not for the court to reinterpret the meaning of the law from its original intention, which was to create zoning restrictions to preserve the character of a community. Four unrelated professionals living in one house is a wide stretch of the definition of "family". The court should rule against Myers and advise that he should seek redress with a zoning variance form the parish council. Further, he should be found negligent in his disregard for compliance with the law. If they are unwilling to grant a variance, this would be proof positive that the legislative body determines that his definition of family does not match their legislative intent in the zoning restriction.

8) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/01/2013

Who lives INSIDE my house is no business of the Government or the Self Appointed Nosey Neighborhood Nazi. This ordinance not only violates the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, but then its enforcement goes even further by violating the 5th Amendment of those it seeks to accuse. The local government will assume you are guilty, and you must prove your innocence. "Whenever the building official has cause to believe a violation has occurred, the owner and/or occupants is required to furnish affidavits, executed before a Notary Public, under penalty of law, attesting to the number of unrelated occupants of the house. Failure to do so shall constitute that a violation has occurred. In other words.... YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, YOU ARE GUILTY HAS CHARGED, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. Whatever happened to the 5th Amendment in this country? Namely, "No person....shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves?"