St. Paul City Council weighs rules for sober houses

A measure requiring 330 feet between sober houses has residents and advocates talking about land use and bias.

By CHRIS HAVENS, Star Tribune

Last update: July 2, 2008 - 9:22 PM

Supporters and opponents of a proposed ordinance that would regulate homes for recovering addicts in St. Paul made their cases to the City Council on Wednesday night.

Supporters said they back sober house residents but think owners and operators are trying to skirt the law.

Opponents said the ordinance is discriminatory and threatened to sue.

In one week, council members are expected to vote on a sober house definition and ordinance.

Nearly a year of study has gone into the issue of regulating the dwellings, with the city trying to balance the concerns of neighbors with the rights and safety of sober house residents. The City Council in October approved a one-year moratorium on building permits and certification for the homes.

Any sober house regulations would have to comply with the federal Fair Housing Act because chemically dependent people are considered disabled and constitute a protected class.

The most controversial aspect of the ordinance would require a distance of 330 feet between sober houses. Under the latest version of the proposal, any sober house more than 330 feet from another would be granted an automatic accommodation.

The city, however, could allow houses to be closer together.

A city ordinance allows no more than four unrelated people to live together in one dwelling. That would put most sober houses in violation of the law because many house five or more people. But because recovering addicts are a protected class and live as a family unit without services, operators say, they should be granted special accommodations to live in residential neighborhoods.

Currently, the homes don't fall under a specific housing category in St. Paul and aren't subject to zoning regulations.

John Curtiss, president of the Minnesota Association of Sober Homes, said the city's study doesn't show evidence that sober houses cause a decrease in surrounding property values, contribute to higher crime rates or require more city services. "So what's the problem the city's trying to fix here?" he asked.

David Lillehaug, an attorney representing the sober homes association, said there will be a lawsuit if the council passes an ordinance with the distance requirement.

Merriam Park resident Angie Palomo, who supports the ordinance, said most folks aren't going to call police when they can't find a parking spot because there are too many cars at one house or when sober house residents talk on cell phones outside late at night. But those things do matter in a residential neighborhood, she said.

It's a land-use issue, not a discrimination issue, Palomo said.

Anoka recently enacted a new ordinance that requires owners of sober homes to apply for a license with the city.

In 2007, there was a proposal in the Legislature to study whether sober houses need regulations. St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have also wrestled with the issue.

By a slim majority, the Planning Commission last Friday approved a recommendation to approve an ordinance without the distance requirements.

So far, the City Council is sticking with its own version.

Chris Havens • 651-298-1542

Recent Local + Metro stories

Happy tail: Dog lost in Ohio reunited with Minnesota family - July 2, 2008

Happy tail: Dog lost in Ohio reunited with Minnesota family - A family dog lost during a car crash on the Ohio Turnpike has been reunited with his Minnesota owners two weeks later. More