Anti-Crowding Law Repealed
Latinos Were Focus of Manassas Ban on Extended Families in Homes

By Stephanie McCrummen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006

The Manassas City Council decided last night to repeal a controversial ordinance that made it illegal for extended relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins to live together as a family and that targeted the city's growing Latino population.

Faced with the promise of lawsuits by numerous civil rights groups, the prospect of a federal investigation and pressure from residents, council members unanimously decided to look for a different way to address parking and other problems they associate with crowded housing and, more broadly, illegal immigration.

Last night, civil rights groups praised the decision, saying it was important because other municipalities were contemplating similar rules and, at a time when it seems that anti-immigrant feelings are ripe for political exploitation, it sent a message that discrimination would not be tolerated.

"We're satisfied they have rectified their mistake, but this experience allowed us to see that there is a risk, that the community has to watch how these laws are adopted," said Ricardo Juarez, coordinator of Mexicans Without Borders. "This shows us that any abuse of power can be defeated by the community."

After the council voted to repeal the ordinance, Mayor Douglas S. Waldron (R) declined to comment.

City Manager Lawrence D. Hughes said the decision was based on the advice of legal counsel. "We decided it was best to repeal the ordinance and look at other mechanisms," said Hughes, adding that the city may establish a citizen task force to explore other solutions to crowding. Hughes said anyone who was cited under the ordinance would not be prosecuted.

The ordinance, which was adopted Dec. 5, changed a definition of family in the city's zoning code, so that with a few exceptions, households were restricted to immediate relatives, even if the total number was below the legal occupancy limit.

For instance, a five-bedroom house shared by five cousins was deemed illegal in Manassas, a suburban city of 40,000 that is about 72 percent white, 15 percent Latino and 13 percent black.

The new definition was part of a broader effort that officials said was intended simply to address increasing complaints about crowded housing -- problems related to noise, parking, garbage and trucks appearing at 5:30 a.m. to pick up workers -- but which in practice has overwhelmingly targeted Latino families, according to city inspectors.

In October, Waldron asked Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) to declare a state of emergency with regard to illegal immigration, which Waldron said was "eroding the strong spirit of our city." Warner declined.

And two years ago, the city established an "overcrowding hotline," which allows residents to make anonymous complaints about their neighbors and has led to inspectors knocking on doors at 3 a.m. to count the people living in a house.

Under that program, which continues, the city relocated about 400 people from June 2004 to June 2005, city officials said. Still, residents kept complaining.

So in December, the city narrowed its definition of family in order to break up more households by forcing out extended relatives such as nephews and cousins -- whom one city official described as "peripheral." Using the new definition, the city calculated that it could relocate about 100 more people.

A city inspector who has been enforcing the program said the image of dozens of people living in squalor did not fit what his inspections turned up in Manassas. Although complaints occasionally led him to houses crammed with too many people, most of the time inspections turned up neat and orderly homes of perhaps eight extended relatives living together to help with the high cost of housing.

Although some legal experts thought that the ordinance could withstand a court challenge, others were skeptical and pointed to a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar law in East Cleveland, Ohio, on the grounds that it violated 14th Amendment protections of privacy and family, among other reasons.

Civil rights groups -- including the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the Equal Rights Center, the Washington Lawyers Committee and Housing Opportunities Made Equal -- lined up to challenge the rule in court or asked the Department of Justice to investigate.

Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said, "If nothing else, other communities will know that there are some limits on what they can do when they try to target immigrant populations."

At a council meeting Monday night, dozens of residents packed City Hall, including many who urged the council not to cave in to pressure from "outsiders."

"The opinions of those outside are gratuitous and irrelevant," one man said. "The ACLU does not care about the citizens of Manassas. All they care about is their radical, secularist, left-wing agenda."

But the outsider label did not apply to the dozens of local Latino residents who turned out Monday night to demonstrate their opposition to the ordinance, having heard about the issue on a Latino radio station.

Fewer people came to last night's meeting, in which the council discussed the ordinance and the possible litigation in a closed session. One of those was Alejandro Miguel.

"I'm happy," he said of the city's decision. "I felt it was unfair. I just came here to work."