City Appeals Court Decision
BY MATT GREEN

In 1996 the city of Oberlin changed its safety regulations for housing. Among other things, fire ladders had to be replaced by stairs in rooming houses. A rooming house is defined as a building with at least two floors and between five and 20 residents. A landlord is denied a rooming house certificate if there is a failure to comply with the changed regulations. 
Oberlin landlord and resident David Sonner, along with a group of five other landlords adversely affected by the 1996 ordinance, filed suit against the city for unfair and unjust practices. The city has appealed and the suit is still pending. Since then, the city’s housing enforcement rights have been revoked by the Ohio Board of Building Standards and have just recently been reinstated.

(photo by Kate Silverman)

The landlords, who were denied rooming house licenses due to a failure to comply with the new regulations, claim that the city misapplied the law in what Sonner calls “retroactive enforcement.” It is the assertion of the landlords that the old buildings should not have to comply to new laws if there is not an apparent fire hazard. 
Furthermore, the landlords claim that Oberlin College, which operates two rooming houses — Old Barrows and Allencroft — was not made to comply with the new regulations. They believe they were denied licenses for the same faults the College has, and they claim that the city has shown unjust favoritism. 
While involved in the suit with the city, Sonner and his group also sued the College in response to an April 1998 letter from College President Nancy Dye to students and parents. The letter listed all rooming houses and landlords who had been denied certificates by the city, advising that these houses were unsafe and should not be rented by students. 
Sonner called Dye’s letter was a “fraudulent display of concern for fire and building. He said that the College did not inspect the houses before issuing the letter and sued on the grounds of “defamation and tortuous interference with business.”
Last December, Sonner dismissed the suit against the College. “I couldn’t afford the legal costs with the city and the College at the same time,” he said. The suit can be brought up again within a year, and Sonner intends to pursue it regardless of whether he’s, “left standing or wobbling.” 
Sonner is also demanding an apology from to College, for what was stated in the letter, and monetary compensation for business lost as a result. 
Carol Graham, a rooming house owner who did not have a license from the city, found her name on the College’s list of “bad houses” in 1998. Dye’s letter “has destroyed my business,” she said. 
To comply with new regulations and to avoid being designated a rooming house, she was forced to reduce the number of residents in her two houses from six and seven respectively, to four in each. “That’s eight out of a possible 13 rooms,” Graham said. 
While acknowledging that the College has to protect its interests in ensuring the safety of its students, Graham said that landlords “weren’t given a fair opportunity,” claiming that the College circulated the letter without discussion or further examination of the houses in question.
Vice President of College Relations, Al Moran, said that the College did not intend to harm or take away business from landlords. “The reason the letter went out is because the president puts safety of students first and foremost in this issue,” Moran said. “The bottom line is if the city doesn’t grant a license to a boarding house, we don’t want students to stay there. It’s not our job to judge whether the city justly or unjustly granted licenses”
Calling the suit against the College “out of line,” Moran said that Old Barrows and Allencroft were governed under state restrictions, in which they were classified as “residence halls,” and therefore adhered to a different set of regulations.
Addressing the possibility that the suit may be resumed by the landlords, Moran said, “I’m not too worried. I don’t think there’s any merit to the case.”