Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-12 CorrespondenceI 1I Vey ConcerNe U ' �bovr i 4U ko vf I r" q GoAe IS VQYN I"IT, IK w ewters o� OJve COIv�rNOltilT�j �YCe l•�Gi' C,ISCrIMIy��-�'L� J1A01AINST �Q`'Q�1►1 �U�SI►1� J , L I I L•is Semis �O htiE �a be vLtIFF¢vo SevorAl rd�er— x�.v�.Y 0� di s cri��NA i tinT1�U ►� . 110010e AA0. eq Cc)KL�r :■ �L44- a fS G%�tiR"'�i6� AK« / VW-� / y?lY A6,0t� �6fA/S 2,0�%4V � i : . (Ad -$astern &wa Communtty �l�lentaQeaptl� Centers 505 E. College Iowa City, Iowa 52240 31S-3313-7BEI4 December 13, 1982 i Human Rights Commission Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 i Dear Commission Members; i We are writing in support of the proposed revision of the Non - Discrimination Ordinance to expand protection in the area of credit to include persons having mental disability. Many people with this problem are struggling to establish themselves within the community and to become contributing members. For them, this revision encourages and supports their efforts. Thank you. `i Sincerely, Verne R. Kelley,.Ph.D., A.C.S.W. Executive Director VRK/aej SERVING CEDAR, IOWA, AND JOHNSON COUNTIES 0111 HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE PROPOSED REVISIONS -A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT MICHAEL BLAKE 605 E.•BURLINGTON ST #2 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 13, 1982 The three major revisions proposed for the Iowa City human rights ordinance have been long in coming. -Their proposal is owed to Iowa i City's continueing committment to human rights.- Anyone•who has worked for any human rights issue realizes what a gradual procedure this sometimes is. j People within the institutional process need time to become sensitized to the needs of minority groups within the community. It is now time to take the next step'in this continueing process. As my lover works with mentally handicapped teenagers, my sensitivity to their needs has been increased. The Commission's proposed expansion of protection for these people will go far in ensuring their inclu- sion as an active group in the community. My acquaintance with several people, including my sister, who have ex- perienced the problem of finding adequate housing because of the fact u that they are single and a parent causes me to applaud the commissioners' inclusion of these people as a protected group. Since I am most directly involved with the third proposed revision, I will direct the remainder of my comments to that issue with the idea that much of what I say can and should be applied to the other areas as well. It is unclear why housing protection in relation to sexual preference was not included in the original ordinance along with employment, credit, and public accomodations. I know that a great deal_of education about and exposure to gay issues has occurred here in Iowa City since the ordinance was first passed almost five years ago. This and the fact the original ordinance as it pertains to -sexual preference has not created masses of gay men and lesbians "flaunting" their sexuality,,as some feared would happen, should convince most that this inclusion will be no more "sensational". M C, 1 -L- But, this should not be taken as an indication that the original ordinance and this inclusion does not have a great impact on the people's lives affected by the protections that are afforded in this legislation. A result of the protection already afforded to gay people uhder the ordinance has been to free gay men and lesbians of some of the constant fear that they will be harrassed and abused because of their sexual preference. We can now be more at ease within ourselves and in our interactions with the heterosexual community. In this way we use the � ordinance every day. The charge made by some that the ordinance is not being utilized is misplaced. The lack of visible use of the ordi= nance is directly attributable to the fact that any Person filing a complaint becomes vulnerable to Possible discrimination because of � the exclusion of housing protection. The Psychological benefits ; derived cannot be measured by numbers and statistics. It has been shown in psychological studies that persons who are not pre -occupied ! i with overridding and energydrainingpersonal struggles are more produc- tive and efficient contributors to the community. This, i feel, is the case in this instance. To erase one more obstacle to our personal well-being can only be beneficial to the health and well-being of the entire community. Lesbians and gay men have a tremendous ever to potential 4Y give to the community. However, they can't always contribute fully and openly because of the obstacles placedupon them by hetero - sexist attitudes. If anyone still doubts the prevalent fear by gays about possible retribu-' tion, I can only say that my personal experience corroborates the exis- tance of such apprehension. One evidence is the number of personal inquiries I receive throughout the year for "safe Housing". It is natural foreo le with similar lifestyles to want to P P y group themselves together for a mutual sharing of their interests. But, I submit that one of the overrideing factors in these particular requests has more to do with the idea of "saftey in numbers" and is coupled with the strong desire by most gay people to live in a situation where they can lead full, honest, and productive lives with all the enjoyment implied in living in that situation. For example, for me to be able to live openly with my lover and so, in a sense, share our committment and the postive energy derived from our love with the rest of the community can only have postive effects on the people of this city. I think, we Mm all can agree that our society could:use some positive energy to address some of the very basic problems that confront us in today's uncertain world. I would askihow much of a contribution a heterosexual couple, could make towards the solution of these problems if they had to constantly divert their energies.to safeguard their right to have a decent place to live, let alone a1p ace at all? I have pointed out some of the intrinsinc benefits to be derived from adopting these proposed revisions. on a more concrete level, it should be made clear that as the ordinance stands today no one, gay or straight is safe from the possibility of being denied housing because of his or her supposed sexual preference. Any bigoted landlord can presumably use this loophole as his reason for denying housing to a black person, a Jew, or any other protected minority. It should also be pointed out that the proposed revision would further protect heterosexuals from discrimination on the basis of their sexual Preference. No gay landlord could deny housing to anyone who presumably was straight. I would think that the council would adopt the proposal on these purely logical grounds if not on a philosophical basis. As an added thought ---Given the existing housing situation in Iowa City, it is becoming easier every day to be more selective in whom one chooses as a tenant. Unless protections are enacted soon, the scenario of minority groups scrambling over each other to the detriment of all except the landlords comes closer and closer to reality. I want to believe that the majority of landlords in this community are interested in proceeding in a manner that will benefit the community as well as them- selves. Their support of these revisions will go far in ensuring that their upright and honest reputation as a group is maintained in this city. In conclusion ---The Iowa City Council needs to adopt these measures for operational consistency and • to maintain its consistent efforts to create a positive atmosphere for the citizens of the community it serves to interact in a healthy and productive way. Iowa City is known through- out the country for its strong committment to secureing basic human rights for all of its citizens. Let's hope our leadership can continue to J direct other communities to similar committment. . /' iA I (; (, J VV� I// UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST SOCIETY 1319) 337-3443 10 S. Gilbert at Iowa Ave. Iowa City. lows 52240 Human Rights Commission City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa December 14, 1982 Dear Commissioners: As minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society, and as President of NAACP for this past year, I wish to endorse the proposed changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. Both our Church and the NAACP have strong and long human rights traditions and I am sure you can depend on support from the ranks of our memberships. Sincerely, Thomas Mikelson tjm/sar 1 �t MUM S JI I! Imrr o INIC_ An Iowa Non-profit Corporation 1020 William St.. Iowa City.IA. 52240 BENNY E. LEONARD executive director 319-338-9212 December 15, 1982 Iowa City Human Rights Commission John Watson, Chairman Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Watson and Members of the Commission: This letter addresses the feelings of myself and Systems Unlimited regarding the proposed change in the current ordinance regarding a mentally disabled person not protected under credit.. We have been providing residential services for mentally disabled persons for 11 years. To this date we have had none of those people unable to meet any credit payments. I urge the ordinance be changed so that the area of credit, pro- tection be extended to include mental disability. Sincerely, Ben . Leonard Executive Director BEL; ks Providing community residential programs and services for developmentally disabled children L adults John Watson Executive Director Gootawill Industries of Soutneast Iowa 1410 First Avenue l P.O. Box 1696 . 1200 16th Avenue S.W. Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 Phone (319) 337.4158 Phone (319) 365.0835 I 1 1 December 17, 1982 Iowa City Human Rights Commission j Civic Center 410 East Washington J Iowa City, Iowa 51140 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to support the proposed changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. It is our strong feeling that mental disability should be a protected class under credit. 'The same criteria to establish credit should be applied to a person with a mental. disability as to any indiv- idual. If credit 'is denied to an individual, let it -be for bona fide reasons -- not simply because the person has a mental disability. In addition, the opportunity to establish,credit and its resultant I responsibilities are an excellent rehabilitation tool. Our goal at Goodwill is to train handicapped individuals to live independently or at the highest level of independence possible; if the mentally disabled are allowed to be discriminated against as a class, the goal of independence becomes more difficult to attain. To reiterate, we support the proposed changes which will help ensure basic rights for all citizens. Sincerely& Mike Townsend Director of Rehabilitation MT/1 k r'rvir' has. ACCREDITED Goodwill Industries o/ Southeast Iowa is an Equal Opportunity Employer J/ 9(f fl�if�V3y1i�IV1�t44 /�1, SNiaYCC��1lCT�y Emma Goldman Clinic for Women Women's Health Project: 715 North Dodge, Iowa City, Iowa S2240 /' (3 19) 337.2111 December 15, 1982 Human Rights Commission Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Commission, The Emma Goldman Clinic for Women would like to encourage the City Council to approve the proposed changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. The fact that it is in any way controversial suggests that it does address a very real need and is not merely a perfunctory formality. We hope that the Council will take this opportunity to fill the gap that currently exists in this community's protection against dis- crimination and injustice. Sincerely, 7lel� Rebecca Arbogast Public Relations Coordinator cc: City Council 1e"lllll PROTECTION AND AL,-v'OCACY FOR DEVELOPMENT, -.,LY DISABLED PERSONS a Division of Iona Citil Rights Commissura Jeanne hurter Uim'art Jim Kelly Cinl RWhu Speda6t it December 14, 1982 John Watson Iowa City Human Rights Commission Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Watson: First of all, I would like to state my support for you and other members of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission for the work that you are undertaking regarding the securement of legal rights for disabled persons. Specifically, Protection and Advocacy would support the inclusion of "mental disability" as a protected class within section 18-34 of your City Code. My reasons for supporting this amendment are numerous. First of all, let us examine the definition of disability as defined in your code. The current definition is as follows: DISABILITY means the physical or mental condition of a Person which constitutes a substantial handicap, but is unrelated to such person's ability to engage in a particular occupation or transaction. This definition in itself would eliminate any difficulty in regards to creditors giving credit to a person who is unable to honor the terms of that transaction. By definition, if a person's mental disability was such that they could not qualify for the credit transaction, it would not constitute discrimination to deny them that transaction. Now, let us examine the proposed definition of disability. The proposed definition of disability is as follows: DISABILITY means the physical or mental condition of a person which constitutes a substantial handicap. A disabled individual is any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more such person's major life activities, (ii) has a record of such impairments, or (iii) is regarded as having such impairment. This definition does not include a qualifying phrase, but rather defines disability itself. Therefore, mental disability would, in fact, be covered by this definition, however, there would be no disqualifying terms provided here in regards to a credit transaction. However, this would also be true in regards to a mentally disabled person applying for a job, seeking to rent an apartment, etc. This should not be seen as any negative statement toward the adoption of this amendment. Rather, it is stated such for EIGHTH FLOOR COLONY BUILDING • 507. 10TH STREL•T • DFS MOINES, IO\VA 50319 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 515.281.8085 • 10WATOLLIREENUMBUt:1.800.532.1465 I John Watson - 2 - December 14, 1982 purposes of clarification. After all, the purpose of this section is not to define discrimination, but rather to define disability. Therefore, the absence of a qualifying statement would seem appropriate. The definition is sound and in compliance with the federal definition of disability. It should be noted that section 18-34 Credit Transactions; exceptions. states the conditions that must be met in order that a credit transaction may be entered into devoid of discrimination. Those sections are as follows: (a) It shall be unlawful for any creditor to refuse to enter into any consumer credit transaction or to impose finance charges or other terms or conditions more onerous than those regularly extended by that creditor to consumers of similar economic backgrounds because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, or physical disability. J (b) It shall be unlawful forany person authorized or licensed to do business in this state pursuant to Chapter 524, 533, 534. 536, or 536A of the Code of Iowa to refuse to loan or to extend credit or to i impose terms or conditions more onerous than those regularly extended to persons of similar economic backgrounds because of age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, sex or physical disability. (c) It shall be unlawful for any creditor to refuse to offer credit life or health and accident insurance because of color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, age, physical disability, sex or sexual orientation. Refusal by a creditor to offer credit life or health and accident insurance based upon the age or physical disbility of the consumer shall not be an unfair or discriminatory practice if such denial is based solely upon bona fide underwriting consideration not prohibited by Title KK. Paragraph (a) and (b) both state that a creditor may not impose terms or conditions more onerous than those regularly extended to persons of similar economic backgrounds. This statement indicates that conditions and terms,credit related,may be imposed upon individuals without violating the code. Therefore, the inclusion of mental disabilities as a protected class under credit would still subject persons having a mental disability to the same terms applicable to a non -mentally disabled person applying for credit, such as monetary resources, ability to pay. If the individual were unable to qualify for the credit transaction because of these terms, it would appear to be reasonable to deny that individual the credit transaction. If on the other hand, the applicant is not given the opportunity to apply and the creditor makes no effort to identify whether or not the individual possesses these necessary terms and conditions 4V// John Watson - 3 - December 14, 1982 imposed upon others than the possibility of discrimination is very apparent. It can be stated that the code does not, either in its current form or in its proposed amended form, contain the word "qualified" preceding handicapped or disabled person. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does on the other hand, "no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ...shall, solely by reason of his handicap be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance ...". However, it is also true that the other classes, i.e. race, sex, marital status, are also absent the term, qualifying, preceding them. Therefore, is it not true than an individual who does not qualify for credit but does happen to be a member of another one of the protected classes would not have a prima facie case in light of the fact they do not meet other conditions or qualifications regarding the credit transaction? Therefore, the same qualification would meet persons eligible under the protected class disability. To anticipate any interpretation other than this would seem in itself discriminatory. In response to the memo from Robert Jansen, City Attorney; David Brown, Assistant City Attorney; Carol Pentuic, City Attorney Intern, I would have to state that I concur with many of their statements, however, disagree sharply with their conclusion. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to address specifically the statements made by the city attorney in regards to the inclusion of mental disability as a protected class within section 18-34, the City Code. The above-mentioned memo states that the term "mental disability" covers a variety of disorders. I agree and therefore I cannot accept any "blanket" rule which denies individuals a right based upon general assumptions of a population representative of vastly different disorders, abilities, skills, resources, etc. The attorney goes on to state that, "retardation, senility, insanity, and incompetence are all considered mental disabilities. However, bad judgment, susceptibility, inexperience, eccentricity, or abnormality will not constitute disabilities .... It is unlikely that a lay person, in the area of consumer credit, will be able to distinguish an incompetent from an eccentric." Generally, I would accept this statement distinguishing disability from non -disabling factors and the statement that it is unlikely that a lay person could distinguish between the two. However, for this very reason, I would support the inclusion of mental disability as a protected class. That is, it would be inconsistent with the goal of section 504 and the philosophy of civil rights itself to promote creditors to identify irrelevant characteristics of individuals in order to determine their credit eligibility. This same fear, as expressed in the attorney's letter, was, of course, a very common fear when section 504 was first passed. That is that employers, educators, etc. would all have to become doctors, if you will, in order to comply with 504. Not so, in fact, this type of attitude is strongly discouraged. The point being that it makes no difference what the medical diagnosis is or even if a disability, in fact, does exist, if either of the two pieces of information are irrelevant to John Watson - 4 - December 14, 1982 the service or the potential services being provided. For example, if an individual applies for a job which will require them working at a desk, answering the telephone, typing a few letters, and that individual uses a wheelchair, it is not of importance or it should not be of importance to the employer that the individual is utilizing a wheelchair for mobility, but rather whether that individual can type, whether they have been trained in the necessary skills for answering the telephone, etc. Any inquiry by the employer into the cause of the person's disability or the extent of the persons' disability, unrelated to the use of the telephone or the typewriter would be most inappropriate and, in fact, discriminatory. Therefore, when an individual applies for credit, it should not be even considered by the creditor that he/she must first establish the intellectual level or the competency level from a diagnostic viewpoint. This would be as inappropriate as them conducting a physical examination upon a physically disabled person. Rather, if the individual is able to satisfy the terms and conditions required by the creditor then why, except for a discriminatory intent, would the creditor need to know anything more. I do not personally know of any credit application which does not require some type of evidence that the individual has "made good" on a credit transaction previously, or in the case of an individual who does not have credit history requires a signature of another responsible party. Therefore, again if a mentally disabled person has been able to honor the terms of a credit transaction previously, why should they not be given the � same opportunity at this date, absent sny other factors such as their financial resources changing. If on the other hand, they do not have credit history, and the creditor requires the signature of a second responsible party, then the risk for the creditor in regards to the mentally disabled person is mute as it would pass to the individual signing the credit transaction and, again, that individual would be required to possess the same qualifications required by potential credit applicants. The attorney's letter goes on to state "a creditor could deny an eccentric the extension of credit, but he could not deny credit to an incompetent". I would have to seriously question the validity of this statement. Again, reflecting back to the pertinent sections in the code, if the person was not competent in regards to honoring the credit transaction, then again, lie would not be qualified, and therefore not eligible for credit. The attorney's letter goes on to state that the possible similarities in the behavior would make the distinction impossible for the lay person. Again, I stress the fact that this is not the goal of section 504 or other anti -discriminatory laws but rather not to give consideration to irrelevant factors. The letter from the attorney then states "this problem is compounded since the courts have decided that a person may be incompetent on some subjects and quite competent with respect to others". To his statement, I can only state that I wish, in fact, that was the rule of the courts. Unfortudately, the opposite is more common. That is, a person is declared incompetent and that declaration of incompetency 1s carried over into all aspects of the person's life. For example, a person who has been delcared incompetent may not vote. Whether incompetency in all cases affects one's ability to be able to vote is an issue which deserves further study. However, at this time, a ruling of incompetency does negate that right of the elector. John Watson - 5 - December 14, 1982 I only wish that the attorney's enlightened attitude toward competency was shared by all. The attorney completes this paragraph of the memo again by stating that he sees no way short of a court termination, for a lay person to know if the person which whom he is dealing is suffering from a mental disability. Again, I ask why do you need to know? In the next paragraph of the attorney's memo, he asks questions regarding what factors a credit dealer would use to determine whether he was dealing with a protected class, who would make the final determination of mental disability, would the complainant have to be officially judged incompetent in a state proceeding, who would pay for the proceeding, etc. I find these questions inappropriate. Attention by the credit dealer should be focused on whether the applicant possesses the required qualifications re: the terms and conditions of the potential credit transaction. I find the attorney's questions inappropriate, unnecessary and discriminatory. Section S of the Attorney's memo discusses mental disability in the capacity to contact. From a factual viewpoint. I have no disagreement with him. In fact, I believe that the presence of the contract law provides the necessary protection to the creditor and credit applicant that the attorney is so concerned about. This law would further support your proposed amended code in that if a person were unable to enter a contract, then it would not be discriminatory for a contractor to deny the credit. If, in fact, i the credit dealer did not know that they were dealing with a mentally retarded person and entered into a contract with the individual only later to find out that a person had been declared incompetent and unable to enter into a Fontract, the contract would, in fact, be voidable. I see no problem with this. I see a bigger problem if the code does not include mental disability. That is, is his statement to be interpreted that currently credit dealers make the decision themselves, whether the individual is competent or not; and therefore if they feel the individual is not competent, does not give them the credit whether or not they have been declared incompetent? His statement would almost seem to say to me that we have a group of people out there who do in fact need protection. This group of people are those people who are competent to enter into a contract agreement but are currently not being allowed to because it is up to the credit dealer themselves to decide, and they can use their own assumptions, stereotypes, etc. to make that decision rather than a court decision. I have no idea of whether guardians are being discriminated against in the area of consumer credit or not. And as far as this encouraging credit transaction with people who are incompetent, again I would have to ask, is this the goal of any section of your code? That is to encourage transactions between credit dealers and persons representative of a protected class who are not qualified to enter that transaction, or is your goal to encourage and provide the opportunity for persons representative of a protected class to enter into a credit transaction when they are in fact qualified. If it is the former, then perhaps there are bigger problems with the code then the amendment of mental disabilities to the area of credit. If it be the latter, then again why would one assume it would be different for this group than for others? John Watson - 6 - December 14, 1982 The last paragraph in section B of the Attorney's memo states that: "From a policy standpoint, it is not sound to require the extension of consumer credit to one who may be unable to meet the contract terms, and may later void the contract. This is especially true when such problems can be avoided when the mentally disabled person acts through a guardian. Does this reflect your policy? The statement sounds laden with stereo- types. I would have to take exception to this statement. of course there are individuals who would not be able to meet contract terms due to a severe mental disability. However, as the attorney amply stated in the beginning of his memo, mental disability covers a wide range of disorders. Many individuals who have been identified as having a mental disability, usually for educational purposes, are in fact, able to hold jobs, live independently, and even meet contract terms. Unfortunately, these people are usually not given the opportunity for such because of negative stereotypes. A mentally disabled person gainfully employed, wishing to be independent, still needs to be able to pay their rent, secure appropriate transportation, pay the utility companies, and buy miscellaneous household goods as well as personal belongings. How many of us have made major purchases, i.e. refrigerators, washers and dryers, cars, without the aid of a loan? Are mentally disabled persons so different? Are mentally disabled persons always the children of independently wealthy persons? I think not. Therefore, credit barriers can present an even bigger problem to mentally disabled persons, mainly barriers for independent living. This is not to say that some confusion may arise. Again, reflect back to your first loan. Did you understand the terms and conditions completely? Many businesses have credit unions through which their employers can obtain a loan and the payment held from their paycheck. This type of arrangement could alleviate some of the fear of credit dealers that the individual would misunderstand or forget to make the payment. In fact, one may call this a form of reasonable accommodation. For those individuals who would not be able to meet the contract terms, again, I stress that the application process used by credit dealers should identify those individuals as it identifies non -mentally disabled individuals who are unable to meet contract terms, thus negating these individuals right to enter into a contract agreement for a loan. Any credit applications that do not identify these types of problems appear to me to be the concern of credit dealers rather than the Civil Rights Commission. The last sentence in the above-cited attorney's memo disturbs me somewhat. lie does not want to encourage contracts between credit dealers and individuals who are either by law or by competency unable to meet contract terms, however, he does not hesitate to state that these problems can be avoided when a mentally disabled person acts through a guardian. Is this encouraging guardianship? Again, I can neither totally support that policy, no do I think it is appropriate to discuss regarding this matter. el // John Watson - 7 - December 14, 1982 To this point, we have been discussing primarily those individuals who do have a mental disability. Another point which deserves sincere consideration is those individuals who do not have a mental disability, yet are included in the proposed definition of mental disability. I am speaking, of course, of those individuals perceived as having a mental disability or with a record of such. An individual who has received mental health services in the past and is no longer receiving or needing such services could be denied credit because of their history of mental illness and the perception by the credit dealer that the individual is still, in fact, mentally disabled. These individuals are not mentally disabled and the fears re: protective laws relative to the mentally disabled population are not appropriate to these individuals. However, it would be perfectively legal for a credit dealer to refuse, at this point, credit to these individuals because they perceive the individual as still having a mental disability. Additionally, a goal of modern medicine, if you will, is to encourage individuals with emotional disabilities to seek assistance and help. As long as our society allows these people to be branded mentally disabled, even after their mental disability have been treated, and further condones discrimination against these individuals, in this case in the form of the absence of the protected class in law, many individuals will choose not to seek mental health services to avoid this stigma. Another group of individuals who would be affected by this amendment are those individuals who have been misclassified in school as having a mental disability. Statistics reflect the fact that a higher proportion of minority youths are classified as mentally disabled than their majority - race peers. Once this label has been attached to an individual they seem to have to carry it for life. If the correction is riot made during school, a clarification as to whether the person is, in fact, mentally retarded or culturally deprived becomes irrelevant to most of society. Society readily accepts the label of mental retardation and the individual faces many barriers in securing their personal rights, amongst these -credit. The individual may obtain an entry level job only to find out that Ire or she can't make it because of the stigma of the label and the inability to obtain credit for needed purchases as discussed earlier in this letter. Section B of the attorney's letter discusses the Iowa state provision dealing with unfair credit practices. His analysis bewilders me. If the credit dealer does not realize the person has a mental disability, as the memo states, and a credit dealer does extend credit, again apparently the individual has met terms and conditions of the credit dealer, and the later the court is made knowledgeable of the transaction and sets aside the agreement as unconscionable because of the creditors knowledge of mental disability, as stated in the middle, then that section seems to be in conflict with the first statement which stated that the credit dealer did not know the person had a mental disability. Is this to be construed as to say that. the credit dealer really did know the person had a mental disability and that is why he or she entered into the agreement? If so, then were they entering into the agreement in order to take advantage of the individual? I don't 4!// John Watson - 8 - December 14, 1982 think you can have it both ways. Either the credit dealer doesn't know and therefore entered into the transaction with good intentions, or the credit dealer did know and entered into the transaction with bad intentions. Additionally, of course the credit dealer could have entered into the agreement with full knowledge of the mental disability but also believing the individual is able to follow through with the terms and conditions of the contract, wants to follow through with the same, and, of course, desires the loan. If this be the case, then what are we debating? Are we saying that because the person has a mental disability they can't possibly know what is best for them, so, somehow we should expect our credit dealers to also be parents to these people and make decisions for them as to what is appropriate or inappropriate to take a loan out for? Do we expect this parenting re: other protected classes? Perhaps there are mentally disabled individuals who are not under a form of guardianship who should be. However, if this be the case, I can't imagine credit dealers being the appropriate persons to make this decision. I think the attorney's memo would support this statement in that he states initially that credit dealers, generally speaking, do not have a vast knowledge of mental disabilities. There are, iu fact, probably credit dealers who seek to take advantage of mentally disabled persons. For this reason, I would interpret the state provision dealing with unfair credit practices as supportive of the proposed amendment, that is to say I do not see this provision as placing credit dealers in "awkward positions". Rather by making it illegal for credit dealers to discriminate against mentally disabled persons, I believe you would in fact, be issuing a policy statement which says that taking unfair advantage of a person because of a mental disability would be discriminatory and would also be a violation of the state provision dealing with unfair credit practices. I believe the two are needed and both support each other. In conclusion, I would support the amendment to include mental disability as a protected basis in the area of credit. I also support the amended definition of disability. In addition, you may want to address reasonable accommodation and how it may be applicable to the area of credit for persons with all types of disabilities. Sincerely, �. Jeanne Porter, Director Protection & Advocacy Division JP:mec 7 �� r, r...;, Iowa Department of Social Services DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ROBERT D. RAY GOVERNOR MICHAEL V. REAGEN Commissioner Iowa City City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: December 10, 1982 Johneorr County ONlee 911 North Governor Street lows City. [Dove 57240 I'm writing in response to your publication of proposed changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. It has been my experience in working with mentally retarded individuals that many of them are capable of handling credit and should not be discriminated against. As you may be aware, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Department of Social Services have put considerable time and money into planning and implementing services to enable mentally disabled ind- ividuals to live independently in our community. Many other indivi- duals reside in an apartment setting at Systems Unlimited. Although they are retarded and may need help in certain areas of their lives, these people may be entirely capable of handling credit. I also support the proposed coverage for tenants. We at this office have been concerned for some time that our clients are seen as undesir- able merely because their income is from public assistance. In actual fact, most ADC parents are responsible people who are experiencing a transitional phase in their lives. Many work while receiving public assistance. Most have been fully self-supporting in the past and statistics show they are likely to be self-supporting in the future. It is unfair to discriminate against them as a group. I hope you will consider this proposed change favorably. Sincerely, Carol Thompson Director of Social Services IOWA COUNCIL ON SOCIAL SERVICES Lois Emanuel Gracle tarsen Dolph Pulliam Femice Robbins Madalene Townsend (Marlon) (Ames) (Des Molnes) (Waverly) (Davenport) e111 I Atd-$69toh 9owa Community I AMU (34eaffi Now 505 E. College Iowa City, Iowa 52240 315-33I I December 13, 1982 Human Rights Commission Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Commission Members; We are writing in support of the proposed revision of the Non - Discrimination Ordinance to expand protection in the area of credit to include persons having mental disability. Many people with this problem are struggling to establish themselves within the community and to become contributing members. For them, this revision encourages and suppoits their efforts. Thank you. Sincerely, Verne R. Kelley,.Ph.D., A.C.S.W. Executive Director VRK/aej II SERVING CEDAR, IOWA, AND JOHNSON COUNTIES f%/ �+c,,rr,•-7 �noz ` J Iowa Department of Social Services DIVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES ROBERT D. RAY GOVERNOR MICHAEL V. REAGEN Canmiubner Iowa City City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52246 December 10, 1982 Johnson County Oma 911 North Governor Street Iowa City. lows 67240 Dear Council Members: I'm writing in response to your publication of proposed changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. It has been my experience in working with mentally retarded individuals that many of them are capable of handling credit and should not be discriminated against. As you may be aware, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and L the Department of Social Services have put considerable time and money into planning and implementing services to enable mentally disabled ind- ividuals to live independently in our community. Many other indivi- duals reside in an apartment setting at Systems Unlimited. Although they are retarded and may need help in certain areas of their lives, these people may be entirely capable of handling credit. I also support the proposed coverage for tenants. We at this office have been concerned for some time that our clients are seen as undesir- able merely because their income is from public assistance. In actual fact, most ADC parents are responsible people who are experiencing a transitional phase in their lives. Many work while receiving public assistance. Most have been fully self-supporting in the past and statistics show they are likely to be self-supporting in the future. It Is unfair to discriminate against them as a group. I hope you will consider this proposed change favorably. Sincerely, (laral` fiho»���. Carol Thompson Director of Social Services IOWA COUNCIL ON SOCIAL SERVICES Lola Emanuel Gracie Larsen Dolph Pulliam Femice Robbins Madslene Townsend (Marlon) (Ames) (Des Moines) (Waverly) (Davenport) �el )-11anuary 1963 V Iowa City Hunan Rights Commission Iowa City Housing Commissio oma Ciy Council Dear Friends: Re: -Proposed changes in Iowa City Housing Code We would like to be placed on record as being in strong opposition to the changes in the Iowa City Housing Code currently being proposed by the Iona City Human Relations Commission. Having been tenants in Kansas City, several locations in Iowa City, including the small apartment building of which we eventually became managers and finally ovmers, vie have learned from long experience that no amount of legislation - no matter how well intentioned - can bring about good relations between tenants and ovmers. Personal interest in providing a home (not just housing), pride in ovmership and occupancy on the part of owner and tenant, thoughtfulness of owner for tenant, tenant for Omer and tenant for other occupants can only be inspired and encouraged. The number of persons who have benefitted from and found lasting friend- ships through their happy experiences in housing situations in Iowa City is legion. It would seem to us to be an unpardonable sin to cause the kind of ovmer xho has found special satisfaction in providing comfortable housing for people - lo these many years - to quit and sell out because he must be encumbered with ! r•.Les and regulations which rob him of his ri=hts. Time after time when asking prospective tenants to describe the kind of property in which they wouli like to live — I am told, 'I-- something homey, not a large building, just a quiet place where I can study, or 1-bere I can rest, a place where other tenants will be respectful of me and r..,y rights as 1 mish to Fe respectful of theirs, something clean which v-11 be well maintained". I I Ve appreciate your serious consideration of our reasons for opposition and trust that you will enter into your deliberations realizing the seriousness of the decisious you are zbout to make which will affect so many persons and their future plans for pleasant, comfortable housing in the City of Iowa City. Respectfully su muted targ ret MacDon ld ,/ Kenneth MacDonald R. R. ,y6 Iovia City, Ionia 52240 o 141// Mise ELIZABETH MI dIOLER 905 HAYWOOD DR. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 March 12, 1984 Iowa City Human Rights Commission Iowa City, Iowa Dear Commission Members: A previous meeting commitment prevents me from attending tonight's meeting concerning housing policy in Iowa City. My concerns follow - in this letter! I agree that people with children have housing needs; so do persons without children. My experience with children began with the fact that I am the eldest of ten children with a span of less than 16 years between me and my youngest sibling. I am not forgetting that my livelihood for 42 ,years, more than a third of a century here in Iowa pity, I owe to parents and their teen-age children; I was their teacher and counselor. Much as I love young people, the hope of our future, I am positive I could not have served in as healthy and productive way all those years if I had not been regenerated from the demands of my work with out a quiet haven in adult only, housing. I now have neighbors, re- tired and ,young persons working in demadding, stressful situations in hospitals, so]iools, and officos who feel very grateful for their present living quarters without children. Please consider carefully any policy that will force oeople to move from their present residence, even out of the City. Sincerely, 7 1v1arch 1984 141Q 7 1994 The Hon. bkayor John ;nc0onald and City of Iowa City Council VARIAN K. rMMR CITY CLERK (3) Ide acknowledge and support the concept that everyone, regardless of his/her way of life, political or religious beliefs, marital status, color, or financial abilities, deserves safe housing at an affordable price. In order to implement this concept, however, we must be in control of our rental policies. To be forced to rent to anyone who comes along, with very little right of refusal, would strike a blow at the very free- doms on which our great nation was founded. As Government -- local, regional, or national --- usurps the prerog- atives of a Free Society to "protect the rights" of one pressure group or another, we are all affected, all too often negatively. Best gov- erned is least governed. True, we must have "rules of the road" to implement safety, security and healthful conditions, but beyond that Government can become an overly expensive and needless burden on society. If Government, in the name of "protecting the rights" of various groups, forces practices contrary to our personal sense of how best to manage our properties, we are left with 3 choices: 1) put our invest- ments elsewhere, 2) simply conform to objectionable practices, or 3) continue in opposition to Government interference. Our present choice is opposition. Our rental operation is small, consisting of 10 living units in 4 buildings. Our clientele (foreign graduate students) is classed as "minority" and refer their friends and ethnic partners to us. They do the pre -selection, so only by someone misjudgement have we had a i renter who was incompi,table. As a result; our advertizing costs are almost non-existent. Only by this method could we continue to serve the community in the manner we prefer and avoid the problems of noisy children, or deviates of one sort or another, should by law we not be able to refuse them otherwise. In light of the foregoing arguments, we ask your vote to defeat revisions to the Iowa City code. Paul A. Johnson 621 S. Johnson Iowa City, Iowa 52240 337-3716 T /� i 'Ru. 1'ozna 1. dMalfml ` ao aox .ce /0 9 of IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 L/-NMyKy6tA 1/- 337-2600 -893 I S/- pop December 16, 1982 Ivette Rentals Corp. 411 S. summit Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Iva: Per your request I wish to express my feelings as to the proposed new housing regulations. Having raised four daughters and now a grandfather of two, I am certainly ! not anti -children. However, I do feel that my wife and I have earned the privilege to peace and quiet in our home. One of the primary reasons for making our home at Andover Garden Apartments was due to the fact that children are not permitted. It would seem that expanding housing rights of those with children will infringe upon my right to a life-style I have sought and found. A great many apartment complexes are available to families with children and are o complexes that ddesigned. onot permit children, this bway le tthe whole sochat there be ietythas ta choice. cer I Ted N. Kjaer 287 Haywood Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 T// Iowa City, Iowa December 15: 1982 Iowa City Housing Commission Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa It is necessary for me to object to the addition of more protected classes to the Human Rights ordinance. I am not aware that there has been demonstrated a need for the addition of the classes proposed, nor of any others. The ordinance should not be amended simply because of the loudest outcry. As a board recommending policyp it is necessary for you to take into account the various factors and considerations which will affect all of the interests involved. If additional protected classes are included in the ordinance, it should be obvious that other classes are being discriminated against. When there are conflicting or competing interests, it is necessary that a balancing of those interests be made after thoughtful consideration. Further, where do you stop with the designation of protected classes? Should not all left. handed persons, redheads, those without hair (the list is limited only by one's imagination) also be protected? There just does not seem to be a need for more legislation in this area. DEC 1 G 1n 42 U APBlr -T--)! 7 U S Very truly yours, Robert Osmundson 7 I -larch, 1964 Q The Honorable Mayor, John McDonald, {� W % 1984 and Iowa City Council Members MARIAN K. KNRR CIN CLERK (3) Please consider personal arrangements, such as ours, when you vote on the proposed revisions to the rental ordinance. We have ten rental units which are in older residences that have been converted to apartments and are -located at 532 S. Van Buren, and 510, 516 and 520 Bowery. They are furnished and are walking distance to the campus. There is only one two—bedroom apartment, with the others being one—bedroom and efficiency apartments. We know from past experience that most of our units are not large enough for families and that, since these are older buildings, the sounds travel easily from one area to another. The activities of children are unpredictable and can be very disruptive to neighbors who are trying to study. For several years we rented primarily to international students from numerous countries, which was fine, but when we observed the community feeling and sharing among students from the same country or background, we gradually changed to those of East Indian heritage. Since ours is a small operation, it is more conducive to specialization. The graduate students who come to the University of Iowa from other countries have had to pass additional exams in order to be admitted. They are coming from different school systems, different cultures, different languages and must be serious about their studies in order to remain in school. Usually the families of these students are sacrificing from their own means so that their boys --and a few girls --can have the opportunity to study abroad. When these young people arrive in Iowa City alone and everything is unfamiliar, it is easier to adjust when they live near someone from the same country or maybe even the same hometown. At the present time, the Vice President of the UI India Association is one of our tenants. As a group, these are exemplary students—many in science and technology fields—and their work here will be important to the world of the future. Thus, the two points that concern me most about the proposed revisions for the rental ordinance are: 1. Plot being able to select our tenants, particularly from this special "minority" group. 2. Not being able to provide relatively quiet, as well as comfortable, living areas for the students, who are our guests. Thank you for your time and attention. �r 17ti . 'A X6,'1 a cnv (Mrs. Paul A.) Roberta B. Johnson 621 S. Johnson Iowa City, Iowa 52240 .._ .. .r•r.:::.ry i��3 i Ol:o .ity :i:. an F?i�hts tea•: iiousi r..� mica, ic:.a City City Council For the record, and to reaffirm our position presented at the recent :_clic iiearin, we oppose most strenuously the proposals that in function ::ould disenfranchise those of us owning and/or managing rental properties.. :ie ac;:no::l_ed_;e en•1 support the concept that everyone, reEardless of his/her .:.'y of life, rolitical or religious beliefs, color, or financial abilities, a.. _:fe housin_ at an afforcable price. 3n or er to = pler.ent Itis concept, ho::ever, ::e must be in control of Our renal policies. To he forced to rent to anyone :.ho cones slon--, verp little ri,-,ht of .efusal, ::ould c=__.._ a blot; _t I.._ -,-cry free- cc•'s on ..:.ich ..ur ..ation ..as fo u.. ie :.s :ever:.:.eat ---local, re_ional, Or r:_no: 1--- uzurps Ci.e ::-crozatives of a .ree Society to "protect the ri hts" of o::e :.ressure EroLp or we .__ all affected, all too of ie❑ re_-atively. 3est 'overned is least ;;ov- ernr�. True, we must have "rLlec of t.._ road" to imzlemcnt safety, security ..'.d Balthl ul conditic^s, CUt b_�':nd ,°at Gove.rr'Cent can become an O:'erly ': C• and C. __ in the name of ". rotecti t.._ ricFts" of various �roLga, to .:c are left wit, Z ..._cos. :) _. Oar ... ?) .__ntinue'in Ore::- _ C _ e ....-' -"ive CS ...:0.^ _.. LO, (Iercrs ._..r.. ;ov•:r:...._..t, all ci:ould fin:: e.ocomocations --c:-e-.-.-here. Tax 3ase becomes involved, as happy o•.:ners and/or managers tend to main- tair. and upgrade their pro,�.erties, raising the tax base. Limiting; our freedom could well result in lettira property deteriorate, resulting in tax loss to the community. Let's leave it as it isH ul A.'.;chn-,on J ■ The University of Iowa' Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Women's Resource and Action Center 130 N. Madison Street (319) 353.6265 City Council City of Iowa City Dear Council Members: NIAR 5 M4 CITY CLERK G �Y 1847 March 2, 1984 On behalf on the Women's Resource and Action Center Staff and Advisory Board, I strongly urge you to pass the proposed revisions to the Human Rights Ordinance as recommended by the Iowa City Human Rights Commission. The passage of these provisions will clearly continue to build a proud reputation for Iowa City in promoting civil rights for all of its citizens. The Women's Resource and Action Center is a cultural, social, and educational center for all women of the Iowa City community. We typically receive thirty calls per month concerning housing. Often the caller is a woman in transition, who needs housing. Women in transition include women who are recently divorced or separated, between jobs, or returning to school. Because these women are often in a weak economic position, finding adequate housing is difficult. The fact that these women typically have children and/or are on public assistance makes their ability to obtain housing almost non-existent. Furthermore, we have been aware of numerous situations over recent years where lesbians have been restricted in their choice of housing in Iowa City solely because of their sexual preference. These restrictions have ranged from fearing harassment from a potential landperson to literally being evicted from housing because of lesbianism. Being essentially a University town, Iowa City has an air of fair play and well being that is deceptive. As an agency director, I want to state without reser- vation that there is another side to Iowa City, one where discrimination truly hurts people's lives, especially the lives of poor women, children, gays, and lesbians. Once again, we urge you to pass the proposed revisions to the Human Rights Ordinance. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, 5", 6 Sue Buckley Director F 0 MAR 2 i984 CITY CLERK March 1, 1984 Mayor John McDonald City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor McDonald and members of the City Council: The Board of Directors of the Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce has discussed the proposed revisions in the Human Rights Ordinance. Our investigation of city records indicates the number of com- plaints has been minimal. Specifically, the total number of inquires with regard to this area was. 69 since November 1980. Of these inquires, 20 would have been complaints under the pro- posed ordinance. If the historical trend holds true, about 10 of these complaints would have shown probable cause. We are concerned about the careful equalibrium of rights, that now exists in the present ordinance. The "balancing of rights" is always a difficult decision and any adjustment in this balance may impact negatively onanother tenant or landlord. We are concerned about the rights of all persons involved in the tenant -landlord or tenant -tenant relationship, the tenants with children, tenants without children, children (and their safety) and the landlords. Therefore, we urge you to further study the local need and the relationship of all citizens rights before passing the proposed revisions in the Human Rights Ordinance. Thank you for giving these concerns your careful consideration. Sincerely, i/ii12l.QJ tY17Jv1rs..tn� `. Ernie Lehman, President Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce EL:jt Greater Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 2358 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 337-9637 MMEARDON, SUEPPEL, DOWNER & HAYES WILLIAM L. MEARDON LAWYERS WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL ROBERT N. DOWNER 122 SOUTH LINN STREET TELEPHONE JAMES P. HAYES IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 338.9222 JAMES O. MCCARRAGHER AREA CODE 3I9 THOMAS J. CILEK MARK T. NAMER THOMAS D. HOBART MARGARET T. LAINSON December 17, 1982 ANGELA M. RYAN DOUGLAS D. RUPPERT Iowa City Human Rights Commission Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - Dear Chairman and Board Members: This letter is written to set forth the position of the Greater Iowa City Area Apartment Association concerning the proposed changes to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance No. 77-2830, as the proposed substantive changes relate to the area of housing in Iowa City. I Section 18 - 32 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City provides a basic framework of protection in the area of housing to several protected classes, including race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex and disability. This ordinance has been in effect since 1979. It was adopted unanimously by the City Council. Compliance with this ordinance has been good. Phyllis Williams, the Iowa City Civil Rights Specialist, recently told the members of the Apartment Associa- tion that few complaints have been filed under the ordinance, and fewer have resulted in findings of probable cause or court action. The Apartment Association submits that the major reason for compliance is the fact that the ordinance is fair and makes sense in the context of housing ili Iowa City. With the possible exceptions of age, sex and disability, there can be no rational or legitimate reason for any landlord to discriminate against the currently protected classes in housing practices. In the case of .age, sex and disability, there may be legitimate and rational reasons to differentiate among prospective tenants. Elderly housing, fraternities, sororities, rooming houses with shared bathrooms on the same floor, and required physicial modifi- cations to existing units to meet the needs of the physically disabled are all cases in point. In general, the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance has provided reasonable exceptions to deal with these situations. Thus, compliance is good because the Ordinance makes sense in the context of housing. The Apartment Association believes the present ordinance which provides protection to certain classes in the area of housing is workable and reason- able, but the proposed changes to this ordinance in the area of housing present significant problems. December 17, 1982 Page 2 To the extent that the proposed changes provide further regulatory restriction upon rental property in Iowa City, the real problem of insufficient housing is further complicated. Speaker after speaker came before your commission at the hearing on Monday evening telling you that parents with children, low income tenants and gays were facing a very tight housing market in Iowa City. These speakers asserted that the problem for them was discrimination by landlords which was reinforced by a tight housing market. Their emphasis was on the discrimination aspect. The clear implication was that the problem is purely political. The Apartment Association strongly disagrees. The real problem is insuffi- cient housing to meet tenant needs and provide them with effective choices. This problem does not exist in the Cedar Rapids market, for instance, because it has an overabundance of housing relative to the number of available ten- ants. Landlords in that city welcome any tenant who is able to pay rent, or appears able to pay rent, which means that there is an adequate stock of housing for families with children, gays or welfare recipients. It therefore is the position of the Apartment Association that most of the -housing issues addressed by the proposed changes in the ordinance can be solved only through enlarging the local stock of housing. What is needed from the City of Iowa City is a set of policies and practices that would encourage the addition of housing units, not deter it. In the past, landlords have experienced such actions by the city as the stringent enforcement of a rigorous housing code, changes in density regula- tions, down zoning, and a construction moratorium. When these are viewed alone without regard to their overall impact, they may appear appropriate, but they do inhibit the growth of Iowa City's housing stocks and so could the additional regulations proposed by your commission. Over -regulation will drive investors out of our city limits. It is with this overview in mind that the Apartment Association submits that the proposed substantive changes to the Human Rights ordinance would be counterproductive. In addition, in extending protection to the classes of marital status, sexual orientation and source of income, it is the feeling of the Apartment Association that the very workable and reasonable ordinance that we now have will be made unworkable and unreasonable. The difficulties can be demonstrated with regard to each of the classes individually. In doing so, the Apartment Association is not suggesting that members of these classes should be denied the enjoyment of quality housing. Rather, it is our position that a persuasive case has not been presented to justify these classes being given priority in a tight market over others and that these classes should not be given the power to dictate to property owners and other tenants how certain types of property should be used. December 17, 1982 Page 3 The Apartment Association's position is most easily demonstrated with regard to marital status. Marital status under the definition of the term in the proposed changes includes dependents. Dependents in this definition is simply another word for children. The proposed changes are designed to protect families or single parents with children from the "discrimination" of "no children" rules. The issue is really over children and it should be addressed directly, not through a confusing euphemism. The nature of a dwelling project (whether a housing complex or a converted older home) changes with the presence of children. This is not a point of dispute but a matter of fact. Noise levels, need for open space, conflicts of life sytle and other issues all speak to the difference between housing units with or those without children. Tenants such as senior citizens and career oriented persons who may wish to select -housing free of the presence of children are being subordinated to the class of tenants with children. The rights of families or single parents with children will suddenly, as a matter of law, supercede any protections which current law or economic forces have afforded to groups without children. Some people (whether elderly, students, professionals, singles, etc.) choose not to live with children or near child- ren, just as some people choose not to live with or near pets. Additionally, there are legitimate reasons for landlords to choose not to rent to parents with children. Some units are located near busy streets. Attrac- tive hazards such as rivers, ponds and pools may be present. Some -units are constructed in such a manner as to make the presence of children difficult. Some individuals rent a portion of their home and do not wish to have children sharing their home. Children are harder on rental units generally, than adults. Children are noisier than adults (perhaps with the exception of some young adults), generally. Units with children require, for the most part, more maintenance to keep them safe from accidents. Balconies on two story buildings with sliding glass doors certainly afford an enticing and extremely dangerous condition for young children. Differences in life styles among tenants can often cause tenant -to -tenant disputes in which a landlord is called upon to be an arbiter. It is the position of the Apartment Association that there exist legitimate reasons to exclude parents with children, just as landlords have legitimate reasons to limit pets, heavy appliances and water- beds, automobile repairs on their property, the presence of illegal activi- ties, and tenants who do not pay rent. To legislate that landlords cannot limit families or parents with children will, in the opinion of the Apartment Association, create friction among tenants with competing lifestyles and could create further hardship for those tenants with children. Landlords will seek to deal with impractical and uneconomic uses of their property. As in the past, and in general, the means of dealing with such problems will be in the form of higher rents, or on a per -person basis. This would not solve the problem. The real problem with December 17, 1982 Page 4 marital status is not whether landlords refuse to rent to singles, married, or unmarried couples sharing an apartment. The real problem is children. The solution is not to force children on landlords who do not want them, but to create a housing environment in Iowa City that will expand the housing stock, especially in the area of family housing, which in turn will make parents with children a more valuable economic force. The problem with sexual orientation is somewhat different. The Apartment Association challenges the assertion that discrimination exists against gays in the rental of housing in Iowa City. The testimony of Iva Hilleman, a member of this Association and a long time property manager in Iowa City typifies the opinion of the Apartment Association on this issue. To the best of the knowledge of the Apartment Association there is no application form in use in Iowa City that requests a tenant to identify their sexual orientation. The problems, in the context of housing tend not to come at the outset, but when a tenant's life style conflicts with that of other tenants. The primary testimony at your hearing was that members of the gay community "feared" that their lease would be terminated, or that their lease would not be renewed. Several speakers testified that they had been evicted "overnight" because they were gay. The Apartment Association questions these statements. If a tenant has a written lease, the landlord is equally bound by its terms. Chapter 562 A of the Code of Iowa provides further protection. If there is no written lease, but the term is greater than 30 days, Chapter 562 A also applies. If no term exists, the tenancy is at will and the landlord must give the tenant, gay or straight, 30 days notice. The protections afforded by law as now written should be sufficient to ally "fears" voiced by gays. If the present laws are not enough, will further regulation be enough? The real problem, for gays as well as other tenant groups is the shortage of housing. The final proposed protected class in housing deals with source of income. The Apartment Association suggests that two major problems exist in this area. The first is that the term "source of income" is an undefined term in the context of the amendments to the ordinance. In testimony before you last Monday evening, certain sources of income were identified which should not be protected, including illegal income and foreign support. The Apartment Association does not believe that it was the intent of your Commission to suggest that property owners should not discriminate on the basis of illegal activities, illegal income or unpredictable income. The problem that is being addressed is welfare recipients and certain other low income groups. If this is the problem, it should be addressed directly. To do so requires that the particular types of income which will be protected be identified (or charac- terized) and a rational basis be determined for protection of these sources of income. Until such a delineation of sources of income is made, the Apartment Associa- tion cannot take a firm stance. In general however, the Apartment Association suggests that you consider certain issues. Should property owners be com- 4,'-'// December 17, 1982 Page 5 pelled to rent to otherwise unqualified non-credit worthy or otherwise un- suitable tenants solely on the basis that the tenant is the recipient of certain support payments? Shouldn't it be taken into consideration that some tenants are unacceptable regardless of the source of income? Should landlords be compelled to .enter into contractual relations for the payment of rentals when these contractual arrangements lower their rental income, or the desir- ability of their units? Source of income as a classification must be serious- ly reconsidered. In summary, the Greater Iowa City Area Apartment Association submits that the proposed changes to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance should not be adopted. Consideration should be given to the fact that the ever increasing regulatory restraints upon the housing industry in Iowa City --an already highly regulated industry --are a major impediment to increasing the housing stock in Iowa City. The Apartment Association believes that the major problems confronting tenants in Iowa City are related directly to the shortage of housing in Iowa City. Respectfully submitted, I Oa Home ` Attorney for the ii Greater Iowa City Area Apartment Association icc: Iowa City Housing Commission 7 �� ■ Adds by SUelle" Sne , APARTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE ; APARTMENT RENTALS IVA M. HILLEMAN TELEPHONE 337.7392 P. O. BOX 576' IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 December 17, 1982 Iowa City Human Rights Commission 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 To the Chairman; Hoard and Phyllis Williams, Civil Rights Specialist I called a number of tenants in units not taking children that I manage and asked this question:. How would you feel if I opened this building to families and single parents with children? " I posed this question to some of the young professionals, and to persons over fifty years of age and I got a response similar to the attached letter from Mr. Kjear. He has given me permission to share his letter. I am using this letter to again state my position that to designate one group of citizens a protected class,.you are taking away very cherished rights of others.- I have more letters coming in on this, and some will be writing directly to you. I am asking that you listen to the public opinion as you are making your decisions on the proposed changes in our present Human Rights Ordinance. It is'a very serious thing to.assign preferential rights to certain groups of people, and thus take away rights from another group. I do not feel that you have established a clear and desperate need for the actions you are contemplating. I•support the Human Rights Ordinance as it stands, but do,'not believe any of the protected classes you are now proposing have shown the need of the protected classes that we now have in the field of housing. Sincerely, ��� Iva Hilleman cc: Housing Commission i BERGAN, NAGL & WRYER --'L L E ATTORNEYS AT LAW 328 SOUTH CLINTON STREET MAR 3 1984 POST OFFICE sox 3013 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 :CITY CLERK MARSHA BERGAN SUSAN NAGL March 6, 1984 SALLY WEYER Iowa City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Proposed Revisions in Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance Dear Members of the Iowa City Council: We are writing on behalf of ourselves and several of our Iowa City clients to express support for the passage of the proposed revisions in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. AREA CODE 319 351-5193 The changes in the Ordinance designed to protect citizens from discrimination based on marital status, sexual orientation, mental disability, and source of income are overdue. We also support the Human Relations Commission's proposal to extend protection from discrimination in housing to Iowa Citians with dependents. Our support for this change is based on the belief that our community should not tolerate an irrebuttable presumption by any Iowa City landlord that tenants with children are per se troublesome renters. The Council should encourage the local rental housing market to accommodate the many families with children in our community. We urge the Council to take, at least, a first step in this regard by prohibiting discrimination based on the presence of dependents in the rental of any single-family dwellings in Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration of our position. Sincerely, BERGAN, NAGL & WEYER �a�o�La, �GLGL,�ajc� Marsha Bergan� I � Susan Nagl Sa� Weyer 7,/ March 12, 1984 The City Council City of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: As a former member of the Human Rights Commission and the Committee that developed the changes before you, I commend you on your decision to assign a higher priority to the proposed changes and to bring these issues to another open hearing. The matters addressed by the proposed changes are not simple issues. They are complex, and, therefore, misunderstood by many. They also raise very basic questions about the nature of individual rights in our American form of democracy. I would like to start by suggesting three criteria for you to use in deciding whether to include any additional protected groups in the current ordinance: 1. Is it an identifiable and definable group of citizens? Can the protected group be distinguished in some clear and verifiable way from the rest of the population? 2. Is there now, or has there been historically, an' inherent vul- nerability for this group? Has there been a pattern of prejudice, devaluation, discrimination or disadvantage for the group in our society? 3. Is there evidence of, or opportunity for, discrimination or unfair treatment today because an individual is a member of the group? Will protection correct or prevent wrongful or harmful treatment? I believe that the additional protections proposed by the Commission meet all these criteria. During the many months of debate over these proposed amendments, we have heard very few rational arguments against the inclusion of mental dis- ability in the area of credit, or the inclusion of marital status and sexual orientation in housing. Most people perceive the inconsistency and irrational negative connotations of offering protection to these groups in three vital areas of life, and then pointedly excluding them from protection in another. i March 12, 1984 By far the greatest opposition has been to the inclusion of dependents and, to a lesser extent, public assistance source of income. This is not surprising, but the chief arguments against these additions are not at all convincing. In summary, the arguments are: 1. More regulation will increase the cost of housing: the changes to the ordinance, indeed the ordinance itself, create no burden unless and until there is a violation. No record keeping, annual reporting or inspections are required. To the contrary, elimination of arbitrary barriers in the marketplace should have an overall effect of increasing competition and lowering costs. 2. The changes are a violation of the rights of property owners: we are not talking about the private rights of a homeowner, but the rights of a business property owner, who purchases a property for the purpose of renting it. The property is in the public marketplace for commercial purposes, and the property should not be arbitrarily barred to any citizens. The ordinance does not prevent any property owner from establishing and enforcing fair„ consistent and non-discriminatory policies, rules and conditions. is The idea that property owners can rent to anyone they choose who justas silly as theits that tgMC onalds can decide who can and. w 3. The life style of other tenants will be disturbed: there is no doubt that civil rights decisions and legislation disrupt life styles - even cause conflict. There is no doubt that Emancipation, Brown vs. Board of Education and the major civil rights laws of the 1960's and 1970's altered the social fabric of our society. But let's not exaggerate the impact of allowing families with children equal access to the housing market. Does the incon- venience of having children as neighbors outweigh the potential social, psychological and economic hardship and harm of restrict- ing the opportunities and choices of such families? Surely not. 4. Much housing is unsafe or inappropriate for children: the concern for safety and appropriateness is important and appreciated. But who is better equipped to weigh all those factors (cost, safety, play facilities, schools, neighborhood, etc.) than renters them - health of "gttoizi" lowvincomenaddition peopleand familiesthave dburdened cour ssociety enoughn9 already. In summary, I urge you to approve all the recommended changes to the ordinance. Sincerely, John Watson ,W/ The Honorable Mayor John McDonald Members of the Iowa City, City Council Ioria City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa $2240 Dear Friends: 0 March 1984 Re: -Human Rights Ordinance 19e want to go on record as being in opposition to the proposed changes in the present City Ordinance on Human Rights. We have studied the changes as proposed by the Human Rights Commission. We too are concerned regarding housing problems but we are not in agreement with the members of the Commission. Our differences stem from the fact that we believe that all kinds of persons wishing housing should be free to seek the kind of home they desire and that after finding that home they should be able to live in it in peace and security. It is our conviction that the proposed changes would make it difficult if not impossible, for many people to accomplish this goal. We wish to go on record also as being highly in favor of children. We have been blessed by our own famiJ.y and are proud grandparents. It is our wish that the children of Iowa City enjoy our fine schools, churches and opportunities for recreation. We feel certain that with the vast amount of additional construction, the ever increasing number of available housing units, as evidenced by our daily papers, there need be no problem in the procurement of housing. (See Report to the Housing Commission, March 7, 1984 by Mr. Lyle Seydel, Housing Coordinator for the Iowa City Housing Assistance Program, - accompanied by his recommendation against the proposed changes.) It is generally agreed that many of those who are considered elderly wish to live in housing which is undisturbed by the natural noises and activities of children. I would submit to you that there are many other persons who also wish a quiet home. There are those whose children are grown whose endurance permits them to enjoy only an occasional visit from the grandchildren. There are those couples, both young and old, who have not had children. There are the employed single persons who must have undisturbed sleep to be alert for their positions and last - but certainly not least in our city - there are the vast numbers of students, both undergraduate and graduate who must study at home. Along with these other afore mentioned groups, these students insist when they come to see a unit, that it be QUIET. Because of the requests, yes demands of our tenants we have felt it our duty to provide an atmosphere within our building which would be conducive to study and to sleep - in so far as it is within our ability to do so. Our tenants depend on us and frequently remind us that their quiet is as important as their heat. We have other concerns which we would like to address. It is our considered belief that the proposed changes would cause the removal from the market of a large number of units which are the very kind many persons prefer. We believe that this subject has not been satisfactorily studied by the Human Rights Commission, the Housing Commission or the City Council. We speak particularly of the vast majority of owners of rental properties in Iowa City - who are small owners - citizens who have made an investment in a few units, have used their own labor and savings for their maintenance and taken a measure of personal satisfaction in providing homes for other citizens. These persons are not absentee land- lords but are people who see to the upkeep, wait patiently for late rent checks and often do the cleaning and make the repairs themselves in preparation for new tenants. We implore .you as our law -makers DO NOT MARE THESE CITIZENS FEEL IT IS NO LONGER WORTH THE EFFORT, for we know that the residences and small apartment buildings they provide are the very kind so eagerly sought and enjoyed by many people. We would solicit your encouragement rather than discouragement so that they will be willing to take the risks, do the work and thereby continue to provide homes for many of our citizens who cannot or do not wish to maintain their own homes. We appreciate your serious consideration of our concerns and beg you to prevent what may well be THE 0RW3-LIAN NTGHTMARE WHICH THREATENS IOWA CITY. Respectfully, R.R. #6, Iowa City, Iowa MARCH 12,1984 To the members of the Iowa City city council: I would like to recommend that you adopt all of the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance now before you for discussion. I have lived in Iowa City for.fourteen years and'feel that these changes will make this city a better place in which to live. I have also rented apartments,for most of those years so I feel I understand the problems apartment living can entail. When the Human Rights Commission held public hearings on this proposal, one of the key issues that came from those.opposing the revisions was that children make too much noise and are too destructive thereby, driving away other potential renters who preferred peace and quiet. If the council decides to oppose the ordinance on this basis I would like to point to the already existing situation of noise problems in many high apartment density areas such as South Johnsbn street which is near my apartment on Burlington Street. At least children are in bed at reasonable hours. I have yet to be awakened by children at 2 AM as I am now on most weekend nightsby large noisy groups who throw empty bottles crashing into the streets etc. To allow one and not the other is in- consistent. The inclusion of children in apartment complexes promotes a diverse neighborhood atmosphere which I view as healthy to everyone. If there are special living units such as housing for the elderly that wish to be excluded from the requirements, variances seem to be an acceptable and established means of doing so. As a person who has worked for many years for 1&ian and gay rights, I feel the provisions further protecting these people are long overdue. To those who would say we do not have a problem in this area because no formal complaints have been made I would respond that unless the law is there to already protect an individual he or she is going to be very hesitant to further threaten his or her situation with a complaint. It is very difficult to dispel the fearthat homophobia engenders in people. As someone who has counseled many gays and lesbians, I have seen and felt this fear time and'time again. As a gay man I have been a victim of this fear and hatred. This revision will help more than you who do not have to walk my path can realize. Thank you for your considertion of these points. Sincerely, /V, �e'"od;k Michael Blake 605 B. Burlington St. Iowa City, IA cc:Human Rights Commission FILED MAR 12 1984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (1) //% L.J. EHRHARDT JOHN D. GNAGY J.STEVEN McCORKINDALE Iowa City — City Council Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 City Clerk Dear City Council: EHRHARDT & GNAGY ATTORNEYS AT LAW CENTRAL STATE DANK BUILDING ELICADER, IOWA 52040 March 8, 1984 TELEPHONE (319) ?45-17]] f14AR 121984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) I am writing in opposition to the proposed changes to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. As a partner with other investors who own residential real estate in Iowa City, I am very concerned about the effects of the proposed changes, especially the issue of children. It seems to me that such a provision would result in higher rents throughout the city and would not be in the public interest. As you probably know, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that Landlords are liable for personal injury or property damage caused or suffered by children who are Tenants in a building. That rule would require Landlords to ''childproof" every unit at considerable expense which would be passed on to the Tenants. There are many units which have open staircases or other potentially dangerous features which could result in injury to children. In addition, many units are located on busy streets with no yard and no common areas for the children to play. It is my understanding that the proponents of this change have not demonstrated that a problem of any significance exists. !Apparently, there have been very few complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of children. It seems to me that a real need must be demonstrated before a change like this is put into effect. Finally, I think that a change of this type discriminates against those who wish to live in a building without children. Many elderly persons as well as young marrieds do not wish to have the noise which children would naturally produce. Those persons should have a right to live in a building without children. This change would punish those people in an effort to solve a problem which may not even exist. In conclusion, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Iiuman Rights Ordinance and urge the Council not to pass it. JDG:ek 1.: i MAR a 1,994 917 Bowery Street j my CLERK: Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Q,tcrt�')vtct.��i,I. llu ,dan�z�a� I have taken great interest in the recent debate over the proposed revision of the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. As a single parent I believe I have faced discrimination when seeking appropriate housing for myself and my daughter. My complaint is with the rental market in Iowa City. Three years ago I had a very difficult time finding an apartment close to the center of town. A great number of advertisements prohibited children, so of course I did not pursue these further. My point is that an already limited market was limited even more for me by these restrictions. Single women rearing children already face multiple financial and social burdens, especially with recent funding changes in human service programs. Passage of these proposed revisions would do much to ease the housing problems of many people currently unprotected, but, perhaps most importantly, this city has the opportunity and obligation to advocate the human rights of children, who can not do =_o for themselves. Sincerely, Sarah C. Swisher E. Norman Bailey 919 Talwm Ct. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 )19W0;9)QX Human Rights Commission Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Members of the Human Rights Commissions December 15, 1982 :his letter is in response to your invitation for written comments as expressed at the meeting December 13. After hearing the commentary presented at that meeting, I am prompted to make the following points, 1. It would appear that the proposed ordinance which deals with sources of income'is really directed at preventing discrimination against individuals receiving rent subsidy payments. If this is indeed the intent of the nrorosal, I would suggest you identify it as such. By making the provision so sweeping, it appears likely to protect areas not intended. For example, sources of rent money that are highly uncertain or risky mient be a factor that should be considered by owners in renting the'_r units, The proposed taw does not matte this distinction. The second point I would like to make covering sources of income is that : heard no documentation that those on rent subsidies are, in I act, deserving of protection by your ordinance. Before such a pro- vision is added, it seems to me that a pers:;asive case for its reed should be presented, 2. The other area I would like to comment on is that of the presence or absence of children. I believe that this provision should be consid- ered as its own provision separate from marital status, since children, Der se, are not necessarily related to the present or past marital status of their parents. To package it with marital status could lead one to suspect that it is being wrapped in the virtue of an unrelated issue to enhance its prospects for passage. Nnre importantly, I think it needs to be made very clear that while your proposal to make children a protected class with respect to housing may benefit those whose, family units include children, it can and, in some instances, will impose costs upon others, For example, this meanu that one will not be able, to have adult -only rental projects, something that has had anneal to amnty-nesters, Furthermore., an an apartment owner who does rent to families (one, or two pirent) with ('hildren, let me :;ay that there are conflicts of lifestyle, hetween different nubsets of tenants Human Rights page 2 and to deny prooerty owners the opportunity to create harmonious living environment for their tenants by establishing, a no children policy will create inter -tenant frictions, [ am confident in this bocause, in fact,' we have experienced complaints and problems because of the conflict in lifestyles when young, singles are interspersed in housing units with young, families. It is basically a situation of inharmonious lifestyles of the tenants which can be avoided if one is permitted to employ a no -children rule, I Sincerely, E, Norman Bailey E\B/vam 1_ 1 �CYLE 4. AILLER COMPANY, INC. PHONE (319) 337-5226 • 335 KIRKWOOD AVE. City Council of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Gentlemen: IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 March 7, 1984 �uIEM MAR 7 1984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) This letter is about my concerns pertaining to the pending ordinance relating to age discrimination for apartment rentals in Iowa City, As you know, our family owns and manages Rochester Square Apartments and Cambridge Place Apartments, both in Iowa City. If you define the various apartment rental markets, (college students, retired, professional, young marrieds, family, singles, etc.), you can identify well over a dozen distinct group`s seeking rental housing. They all have different needs and rights; they are distinct markets with specific requirements for each. We wish to make the following points: 1. It is not reasonable to throw all these different users into the same pot. Our tenants, mostly retired, do not wish to be mixed with all ages. You will increase the rights of a few at the expense of other rights for many. 2. If there is a sufficient demand from any of these specific market segments, the market will fill the demand through normal supply and demand. A free market will tend to satisfy whatever market segment presents opportunity. This is happening right now in the student market, indeed, there is substantial evidence of overbuilding for the student market developing. In summary, we think the problems that will develop from this proposal are much greater than those presently existing, and we respectfully request that you vote no on this ordinance. 4yS' rely yours, W. Miller 7 I �oa�pp MAR 8 1984 MARIAN K. KARR March 7, 1984 CITY CLERK (3) To: The Hon. Mayor John McDonald and Members of the Iowa City Council In writing to you I represent the opinions of other tenants who are mature students, most of them far along in their graduate work and also a group of retired persons who have retired after many years of dedicated service. We all need a place to live that contributes to our well-being and thatpermits us to pursue our work in satisfactory surroundings. We are strongly opposed to the proposed ruling which denies landlords and landladies the right to have jurisdiction over the rental of rooms and/or apartments. What about the rights of persons like those I represent? I myself aM legally blind. All who live in the apartments around me as my neXhbors are eager to have their rights preserved. Please, please, don't discriminate against us! RAM:emt Respectfully submitted, Dr. Ruth A. Maxwell 411 0 �oIEM MAR 0 1984 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) March 7, 1984 To: The Hon. John McDonald and members of the Iowa City Council I am owner of some apartments in Iowa City. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of renting to many very wonderful people. These include: people of many religious faiths, people of many nationalities, people with different kinds of handicaps. Now, I very much want to be able to place people in living quarters where they will enjoy living and working. If I do not have this privilege, then I, and others like me, are truly discriminated against. Surely, this can't be right or fair? OPR:emt Yours, Dr. Olive Pearl Ritter 6". OM1/ �� {�'. / - • _ �`. VAP SiARN .N Wi VIRlSiAM \ _.. _. r\4,,.). ✓'\i .f`�:: a.. J.. .. Vii'.. 1. .J.. �`' \; .i)'.\.. .`. QJ ,�•'\}�.�.�r• i i , J tJ i 1 \ i._`4i sa f \ ... a_ 4 r ><t .:.;�.i i\. •>J4�.. i.:�_.y! I 1 i I 'City of Iowa CHI' = MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 1984 To: City Council �/✓�1 From: Phyllis A. Williams, Civil Rights Specialist" Re: Housing Inquiries It was during your February 21st informal Council meeting that the numbers concerning housing inquiries outside our jurisdiction were given. In writing they are as follows: Since November 1980 through January 1984, staff for the Human Rights Commission has received 69 phone calls that were housing related. Of ' those 69 phone calls, 8 had to do with marital status; 7 dependents; 3 sexual orientation; and 2 source of income. Please advise me of any additional information you would like me to provide. bj4/3 Date: Decmeber 3, 1982 To: Housing Commission and Phyllis Williams, Civil Rights Specialist From: Lyle Seydel, Housing Coordinator PjkeQ. Re: Suggested Changes Made By the Iowa City Human Rights Commission to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance The following comments are provided to the Housing Commission and to the Civil Rights Specialist in considering changes being contemplated to the Human Rights Ordinance of the City. These comments are made by the Housing Coordinator and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Housing Commission at this time. Housing Commission members received the first copy of the proposed changes on Wednesday, December 1 and did not have the opportunity to study or review the ordinance prior to their meeting held on December 1. Housing Commission members are reminded that the Civil Rights Commission will be holding a public hearing on Monday, December 13 at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center. COMMENTS Article 1. Definitions. - Why is the definition of age necessary? It appears what you attempting to do is define adult for the purpose of determining who may file a complaint. Recommend that age be defined as age means chronological age of any person. Add y�� ,.-Y.._ _......_ -------------- � 2 ^ definition for adult - adult means any person who has reached the age of 18 years or is considered by law to be an adult. Add Under Definition of Complainant - Complainant means an adult person who has filed a report alleging discrimination as provided, etc. Under Definition of Complaint - means a report alleging discrimination, etc. Disability - The definition proposed for disability is not really consistent with the federal definition of disability as it pertains to housing. I will provide a definition as used in housing on disability. The definition as utilized in housing for disabled follows: "Disabled means in,,ability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. As defined under Section 223 of the Social Security Act (one who is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity, by reason of any medically i determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted, or which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months) or in Section 102(5) of the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Amendments of 1970 (a disability attributable to mental retardation, cerebal palsy, epilepsy, or another neurological condition of an individual found by the Secretary (of Health, Education and Welfare), to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for mentally retarded individuals, which disability originates before such y// 3 r individual attains age 18, which is continued or can be expected to continue indefinitely., and which constitute a substantial handicap to such individual." In considering the above definition, perhaps handicapped should also be defined. That definition follows: "Handicapped means having a physical or mental impairment which is expected to be of long -continued and indefinite duration, substantially impedes the ability to live independently and is of a nature that the ability to live independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions." Definition of Marital Status - Recommend deletion of the last sentence "Also includes the presence or absence of dependents." The apparent intent of this phrase appears to be to prohibit the restriction of "no children" in the conduct of renting dwelling units. There are structures/complexes/projects designed and built with just that prohibiition in mind. Children can cause more wear and tear, be troublesome, noisy, destructive, etc. Many persons want to live in an environment where children are prohibited and that right must also be preserved. If the phrase is to be retained then it should be modified to say what is intended. Change the word dependent to children/minor, provide a definition of dependent because a dependent could be an adult. Definition of a Person - Recommend that the definition be changed to read means one or more adult individuals. yir Section 18-32 Housing (pages 7-8) (A)(1) through (4). There are no apparent reasons why marital status, sexual orientation or source of income should be added to these sections. What is being attempted is to add to the list of protected classes. There are reasons why they should not be added such as: A. There are units built and designed for occupancy by one person, therefore, any advertisements or tenant selection process should reveal that only singles will be considered. B. When definition of marital status includes children, and as indicated above there are legitimate reasons for excluding children. C. By including sexual orientation the City ordinance would be encroaching on the rights of not only owners but other occupants of a building/rental complex/ 7D exercise their moral/religious belie and practices. In fact it may not be legally enforcable. D. Source of income. No serious objection as to inclusion of this item, however, the intent is not clear. If the intent is to prohobit landlords from using this as a method of excluding welfare recipients, it is not necessary. They could be denied occupancy on the basis of inability to pay or credit ratings. 5 Section 18-32 Paragraph (b)(3) I Recommend this entire paragraph he deleted as unnecessary. Religious I � institutions are covered by paragraph (b)(1). There are many types of non- profit corporations that deal in housing and should not be excluded, for example, Ecumenical Housing, Systems Unlimited, Oaknoll, and indeed the City itself in the capacity of the Iowa City Housing Authority. Paragraph 18-32(d) - Recommend that marital status, sexual orientation, source of income be deleted from the change. The change is necessary but should Iaddress age only and this could be satisfied by including age in the existing ordinance. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 23, 1983 To: Iowa City Council From: Iowa City Human Rights Commission 4 Re: Proposed Revisions to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa) The Iowa City Human Rights Commission recommends the attached proposed revisions to the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa). We recommend these revisions in the spirit of updating and improving an otherwise excellent document which has made Iowa City a leader in the promotion of human rights for all of its citizens. Background of Proposed Revisions A subcommittee of the Commission (Futrell, Barcelo, Gill, .Watson) began reviewing the ordinance during the Spring of 1982. Upon review the subcommittee proposed several changes. The full commission began discussion of the committees recommendations in the summer of 1982. After several discussion sessions within the Commission, a public hearing was held in December 1982 to solicit public comment on the proposed changes. The Commission received written comments from the public in December and January, and met with the Housing Commission in January 1983 to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed revisions. After considering the comments and making some modifications, the subcommittee met with David Brown of the city legal staff to ensure that the wording of the proposed revisions accurately reflected our intent in legal terms. At the January meeting the Human Rights Commission voted 7-0, with one member absent and one vacancy, to support adoption of the attached revisions. Overview of Proposed Revisions The proposed revisions are of two types. First, we are proposing numerous minor and relatively noncontroversial changes. Many of these are wording changes 'to improve clarity or consistency. Others are changes in procedural sections to improve the functioning of the Commission. We have received no comments .on these proposed changes and recommend them primarily as fine-tuning. The second group of changes are more substantive and more controversial. The current ordinance does not provide adequate protection against discrimination to the people of Iowa City in several areas and we propose to extend protection in those areas. The current ordinance protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, public accommoda- tion and credit with the exceptions that: (a) marital status and sexual y/i orientation are not protected under housing, and (b) mental disability is not protected under credit. The Commission strongly believes that these exceptions are illogical and effectively condone discrimination in these areas. Thus, we believe the following changes are necessary if Iowa City is to have a consistent human rights policy: (a) .the area of housing protection should be extended to include marital status and sexual orientation, and (b) the area of credit protection should be extended to include mental disability as well as physical disability. The Commission further proposes that protection in housing be extended to include the presence or absence of dependents and public assistance source of income. We believe that discrimination in housing on the basis of dependents and source of income has harmed persons in those categories, and extension of protection is needed in the interest of human rights in Iowa City. Rationale for Proposed Revisions Inclusion of Marital Status and Sexual Orientation Under Housin . Marital status and sexual orientation are protected classes in all other sections of the ordinance (employment, public accommodation, credit) and logically they should be protected classes in housing as well. The Commission finds no reason why discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation is any more acceptable 'in housing than in the other areas. Furthermore, public comment strongly supported these proposed revisions. The major objections to these inclusions, expressed in comments we received, was an objection to increased regulation in general. The inclusion of marital status and sexual orientation neither requests specific actions nor restricts activities in the area of housing and thus, this extension should have minimal impact on those providing housing in Iowa City. The existing regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation have had a positive effect on the Iowa City community. We believe that the compelling logic of extending protection in these areas far outweighs any possible detrimental effects of increased regulation. Inclusion of Presence or Absence of Dependents and Public Assistance Source of ng Income under Housi. These changes would establish new protected classes only in .the area of housing. We believe that discrimi- nation on the basis of dependents and source of income in the area of housing has harmed Iowa City residents sufficiently to justify their inclusion in the ordinance. (It should be noted that in the first draft of proposed changes the provision for dependents was included in the definition of marital status. Confusion illustrated in the public comments prompted us to treat dependents as a separate issue.) The proposed revisions include dependents of all ages, such as elderly parents and disabled persons, as well as children. The provision for dependents has proven to be the most controversial proposal, and the concerns center around the issue of children. Public comments opposing the change focused on the suitability of some housing for children and the desires of other tenants to be in all -adult housing. The Commission recognizes the validity of these concerns, but believes the human rights of persons with dependents outweigh these arguments. It should be noted that the proposed inclusion of dependents in no way is intended to restrict the rights of property owners or others engaged in housing transactions to set fair and reasonable criteria regarding income, damage deposits, number of occupants, order and cleanliness as otherwise allowed by law. We strongly believe that suitability of housing should be the concern of the potential tenant and not a discriminatory criterion limiting the choice of housing. For example, in the view of the Commission it is discriminatory if a single mother and one child cannot rent an apartment if two adults could rent the same apartment. Although a concern for other tenants seems logical, application of that standard could be (and indeed has been) used to justify discrimination on any basis. Thus, in terms of human rights, the concern of those not directly involved in the housing transaction must be secondary to the rights of those who might be discriminated against. Inclusion of Mental Disability under Credit. This proposed revision provides protection to a class of individuals already protected under all other sections of the ordinance. Public comments from a number of people, including representatives of several agencies and organizations specifically providing services to the disabled, supported this change, and we received almost no negative response. Availability of credit is an important factor in assisting disabled persons to live independently. This proposal in no way prohibits creditors from applying fair and reasonable standards of credit -worthiness or ability to comprehend the transaction. Indeed, .these are the nondiscriminatory standards that should be applied. As with the inclusion of maritalstatus and sexual orientation under housing, the rationale for including mental disability under credit is far more compelling than any counter -arguments. We of the Iowa City Human ,Rights 'Commission will be happy to provide further background concerning these proposed revisions, and we look forward to discussing them with you at an informal Council session at your convenience. Attachments: 1. Proposed revisions in Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance 2. Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance, as proposed, with revisions capitalized. 3. Current Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance (Ordinance No. 77-2830 as amended by Ordinance No. 79-2951). bj5/1-3 T/% City of Iowa Cit„ MEMORANDUM DATI, March 8, 1984 T0: City Manager and City Council FWM: Lyle G. Seydel C0 RI: My memo dated March 7, 1984, subject - Proposed Changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance. This memo is provided for clarification and reiteration of infor- mation provided in my recommendations to the Housing Commission and City Council by memo dated March 7, 1984, referenced above. In paragraph 1 of that memo I indicated the suggested changes If were ap,arently the 'result of deliberation of the Human Right�ommission and staff with no input from other staff or public..."(emphasis added). The first indications that the Human Rights Commission was contemplating changes to the ordinance probably came as a result of a news article. An extract of the minutes of the Housing Commission meeting of November 3, 1982, follows: "General Discussion - Seydel advised that the Human Rights Commission is discussing some changes that will affect housing. He indicated that he has asked the staff person to provide copies of the draft ordinance for Commission review prior to submission to Council." Printed copies of the changes were obtained from the Human Rights Specialist only a few days before the Housing Commission meeting held December 1, 1982. This would have been the first opportunity for the Housing staff or Commission to provide input and by that time the changes had already been suggested (printed) and the public hearing scheduled. Staff recommendations were made and the Housing Commission did offer comments and suggestions. See paragraphs 2 through 7 of my previous memorandum. My recommendation to the Housing Commission and City Council that these changes not be adopted at this time still stands. The article appearing in the Daily Iowan, March 8, would lead a reader to believe that the Housing Commission recommended approval of the proposed changes. This is not true. what the Housing Commission voted on at their meeting held March 7, was that my memo be forwarded to Council unchanged. See copies of minutes attached. LGS:mth City of Iowa City. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 1984 TO: Housing Commission City Council FROM: Lyle G. Seydel, Housing Coordinator RE: proposed Changes in the Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance 1. In late 1982 the Human Rights Commission suggested certain changes to the human Rights Ordinance. The changes were apparently the results of deliberation of the Human Rights Commission and staff with no in- put from other staff or the public. (See attached memorandum, Decem- ber 3, 1982, Seydel to Williams). 2. The Housing Commission, at their regular meeting, December 1, 1982, received copies of the suggested changes and discussed their ramifi- cations and impact on Housing in the community. They recommended that the Human Rights Commission table further discussions and that the Hunan Rights Commission meet with the. Housing Commission for fur- ther discussion. 3. Housing Commission Meeting January S, 1983. The Housing Commission discussed the Human Rights Ordinancewith the Human Rights Commission (Copy of Minutes attached). No definitive action, however, the Human Rights Commission was questioned as to the number of incidences and what data was available to indicate that such practices were preva- lent. 4. March 2, 1983. Revised proposed changes to Human Rights Ordinance distributed. (Minutes attached). Recommendation to City Council that they not schedule for discussions the proposed changes until the Housing Commission had an opportunity to review and comment. 6. April u, 1983. Housing Commission Meeting (Minutes attached). Re- viewed proposed changes and reaffirmed previous recommendations. Differences between Housing Commission and Human Rights Commission not resolved. Housing Commission recommended that the Council table the proposed amendments until the two Commissions get together and resolve many of the differences. See Memorandum attached. 6. February 28, 1984. Special Housing Commission Meeting. (Minutes attached). J 7. During the early stages of considering the proposed changes, the Housing Commission received several written comments on the pro- posed changes. Copies are attached for information. B. In view of the lack of data that indicates this is a problem and the negative affect the proposed changes could have on the rental market, it is recommended that these changes not be adopted at this time.