We have basically no renter's protections.

The unrelated thing is often used to prevent people from renting. As is the one/two people per bedroom law.

Ah cool, good to know lol

So you’re saying they use that law to be picky-choosey about who they rent to? Or is it a law that is regularly upheld?

I was told the unrelated persons rule was to prevent brothels.

The MO Attorney Generals website is a reliable source.

https://ago.mo.gov

and the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development https://www.hud.gov/states/missouri/renting/tenantrights

I’m a property manager, and I’m not aware of this cap you refer to. Management companies can set up a rule like that for their leases, but do you mean there is a city ordinance that only applies to certain zones within the city?

Springfieldmo.gov has a PDF on their site that states

Each lease or rental contract entered into
regarding rental housing containing one or two
units which is zoned R-SF or R-TH and is located
in the designated neighborhood areas shall
contain the following language:
“Occupancy limited to one family or
three unrelated people, or one family
or four related people as determined by
the zoning classification of the
property.”
This language shall be posted on all such rental
property. Failure to comply with this section
shall render the occupancy permit null and
void.
(G.O. No. 6409, § 1, 11-27-2017)

I mean, the cops aren't coming and doing a headcount, but most landlords or property management places are gonna invoke that super quick when you show up with 5 people under 21.

Thank you. I misunderstood the original post.

Notably though, this would only apply to single family houses and townhouses…and it isn’t enforced anyways.

The no more than 3 unrelated is broken by tenants and developers. There are a number of builders who have built 4 bedroom units along Cherry Street, just a few blocks from MSU campus. The single-family neighborhood has a neighborhood organization and they spoke out against this development, fearing that college housing was going to take over swaths of their neighborhood. They literally used this law, stating the city can’t be allowing developers to build units with more than 3 bedrooms. The city council still green-lit the developers and the 4 unit developments have been open now for 5 years without any city code violations presented to the property owners or the tenants. The law is unenforced and will likely be removed or amended.

That’s interesting, considering that I’ve heard that Drury does not have sorority houses on campus for the same reason, but we have a handful of fraternity houses.

Thanks for the resources, I have read through them a couple times now, very helpful:)

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing. God forbid that young people have access to affordable housing, or even just low income individuals, for that matter.

It is to my understanding that in the city of Shawnee, Kansas, a similar law was voted in to “protect tenants from exploitative landlords”. As for Springfield, the unrelated tenant cap is news to me as of yesterday. While it’s true that there are zones where this does not apply and therefore cannot be legally enforced, unfortunately there is only a handful of affordable 4BR rentals available and all of the ones that I have specifically searched for on zoning maps are located in R-SF zones. Luckily, you’re right, it doesn’t really seem like the city even acknowledges this law.

[deleted]

I wonder if they're getting around that by doing the "rent a bedroom, shared common space" thing?

Of course, the city cares fuck all what the citizenry actually wants.