UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND LAW REVIEWVolume 18, No. 2WINTER 1995
NOTE
Mains Farm v. Worthington: Fair Housing Laws and Fear of Adult Family Homes
Todd H. Carlisle(fn*)
At first glance, the Washington State Supreme Court's decision in Mains Farm Homeowners Ass'n v. Worthington(fn1) might appear to be merely an extension of a long line of Washington cases in which courts have exercised their inherent equitable powers and properly enjoined the breach of a private, legally enforceable restrictive covenant.(fn2) However, as one looks more closely at the implications of Mains Farm in the context of the societal trend towards full integration of individuals with disabilities into the American mainstream,(fn3) the supreme court's decision in Mains Farm becomes somewhat more problematic.
As a result of Mains Farm, judicial precedent in Washington State is firmly set: For-profit owner operated group homes for the disabled(fn4) have been designated by the Washington State Supreme Court as "commercial" and "institutional" however hard they may try to emulate family life, and however minimally they may impact the surrounding community.(fn5) In the aftermath of the Mains Farm decision, group homes are vulnerable to judicial attack if they are situated or proposed in subdivisions and other residential communities in this state which are subject to "single-family dwelling/residential use" restrictive covenants. Mains Farm thus empowers group home neighbors who may harbor "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" ("NIMBY")(fn6) sentiments with the legal means to attack and expel group homes for the disabled from their communities. In response to this threat, group home defenders and advocates for the disabled in Washington State must closely analyze the majority Mains Farm opinion and develop an effective strategy by which to defeat future similar law suits.
Although the Mains Farm majority's conclusion that a group home for the disabled is neither a single-family dwelling nor a residential use is certainly questionable,(fn7) this Note is neither intended as an addition to the "what is a family?" definitional debate, nor as a proposal that the issues decided in Mains Farm be re-litigated. Instead, this Note will: (1) analyze the Mains Farm controversy from the often ignored perspective of disabled individuals who benefit from community based group homes, and (2) present applicable state and federal law by which group homes threatened with judicial attack in the wake of the Mains Farm ruling can defend themselves.
Specifically, Section I of this Note will present an overview of both the benefits of group homes for the disabled and the various ways in which resistant NIMBY neighbors and municipalities have attempted to banish them. Section II will analyze the Mains Farm decision. Section III will explore evidence of an overriding public policy favoring the establishment of group homes for the disabled in Washington State. Section IV will analyze the neighbors' conduct in Mains Farm under both the federal Fair Housing Act and Washington's Law Against Discrimination.
Ultimately, this Note will conclude that future group home defenders should not concentrate on re-litigating the issues decided in Mains Farm. Instead, their focus should be on seeking an authoritative judicial determination that neighbors who attempt to use a "single-family dwelling/residential use" restrictive covenant to banish group homes for the disabled from their communities are violating both state and federal fair housing laws.
I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
The last thirty years have seen the advent of small-scale, community-based group homes in the United States as the preferred model for residential treatment of individuals who are either mentally ill or physically and/or developmentally disabled.(fn8) The growth in the number of group homes for the disabled in Washington State, and the corresponding decrease in hospitalized and otherwise institutionally-confined individuals,(fn9) has been attributed both to a growing concern for and appreciation of the civil rights of the disabled(fn10) and to bottom-line budgetary considerations.(fn11)
Unfortunately, the national trend towards deinstitutionalization and community-based living for individuals with disabilities has, at times, met resistance at the local level. In numerous instances, the NIMBY syndrome has manifested itself in the form of opposition to the establishment of group homes for the disabled in particular neighborhoods and municipalities.(fn12) A legacy of centuries of bias against and fear of the disabled,(fn13) combined with a related and more readily articulated fear that group homes negatively affect both property values and the "character of the community,"(fn14) have led to legal challenges,(fn15) public protests,(fn16) and even arson(fn17) as a means of keeping group homes out of particularly resistant neighborhoods.
Although there are few reported instances of violent resistance to the establishment of group homes, case law expansively documents both legislative and judicial methods in which neighbors and/or local governments have resisted group homes for the disabled.(fn18) A quick survey exposes three methods typically used.
First, certain municipalities have, in response to public pressure, taken a "pro-active" approach by passing zoning ordinances specifically aimed at limiting the number and location of group homes for the disabled in their community. For example, Miami Beach banned group homes for the disabled on certain commercial streets in response to concerns that the presence of disabled residents in these areas would "deter shopping and tourism."(fn19) In Burstyn v. City of Miami Beach,(fn20) a federal district court struck down the ordinance on equal protection grounds.(fn21)
Second, some cities have utilized pre-existing zoning ordinances in attempts to exclude group homes.(fn22) Although there are some variations,(fn23) these cities typically justify excluding group homes by claiming that group home residents are in fact boarders or tenants, and as a result, the home violates "single-family use" zoning ordinances.(fn24)
Finally, in the absence of either willing local officials or applicable zoning ordinances, group home neighbors have petitioned the courts to enforce private covenants restricting property to single-family dwellings/residential use.(fn25) For example, in Crane Neck Ass'n, homeowners in an affluent subdivision contended that a group home housing eight developmentally disabled adults violated a restrictive covenant.(fn26) The convenant stipulated that "there shall not be constructed nor maintained on said premises other than single family dwellings."(fn27) In an influential opinion, the Crane Neck court agreed with the homeowner's association that the group home violated both the letter and spirit of the restrictive covenant.(fn28) It then held, however, that the overriding public policy of the state of New York prevented the court from enforcing the covenant against the group home.(fn29)
Other state and federal courts have not followed Crane Neck and have adopted wildly diverse opinions as to whether group homes violate "single-family dwelling/residential use" restrictive covenants.(fn30) Factors that have contributed in varying degrees to the seemingly ad hoc nature of judicial determinations that a group home is or is not a "single-family dwelling" or a "residential use" within the meaning of a restrictive covenant include: the wording of the covenant involved,(fn31) the size and activities of the group home,(fn32) legislative pronouncements,(fn33) as well as traditional notions of what constitutes a family.(fn34) In Washington, in the aftermath of Mains Farm, judicial precedent now seems firmly set: A small for-profit group home for the disabled is not a "single-family dwelling/residential use" within the meaning of a private restrictive covenant.(fn35)
A. Particularly Problematic Suits
Given (1) the empirically demonstrated benefits of community based living for individuals with disabilities,(fn36) and (2) the lack of any evidence supporting claims that group homes for the disabled negatively impact the neighborhoods in which they are situated,(fn37) NIMBY lawsuits to exclude group homes from particular communities are extremely problematic. Suits like Crane Neck and Mains Farm, in which neighbors attempt to enforce facially neutral restrictive covenants against group homes, are particularly troubling for two reasons: (1) The exclusion of group homes for the disabled from residential subdivisions is potentially disruptive of the benefits of group home living,(fn38) and (2) suits to enforce restrictive covenants represent a relatively easy method of banishing group homes from residential neighborhoods.(fn39)
Single-family dwelling/residential use restrictive covenants are commonly created and imposed by developers of residential subdivisions in an effort to create stable, predictable residential communities.(fn40) Stable residential communities facilitate the opportunity for both the "normalization" and community integration that is essential to a therapeutic group home environment.(fn41) The most obvious long term danger posed by further Mains Farm-type law suits in Washington is that group homes could be effectively excluded from planned residential subdivisions, arguably the most appropriate...
