A group of Ames landlords filed a notice of appeal Tuesday with the Iowa Supreme Court, contesting a Story County District Court ruling regarding an Ames over-occupancy ordinance.

Second Judicial District Judge William J. Pattinson has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Ames Rental Property Association, which intended to overturn the ordinance that limits the number of unrelated people living in a single family dwelling in low-density residential zones to three.

Pattinson threw out the case, stating that the lawsuit’s plaintiffs failed to present enough facts to require a trial.

“I agree that there are no fact issues in this case that require assessment or determination by a judge or jury,” he said.

In their lawsuit, Pattinson said the plaintiffs failed to give adequate evidence showing that the ordinance is “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory” and granted summary judgment to the city of Ames.

“That is pretty much what we expected, at this level. Very rarely do district judges rule against municipality,” said Gordie Meyer, rental property association spokesman.

Meyer and others in the association are confident they will be able to gain a favorable ruling among Supreme Court justices, since the Court has already ruled on the section of the Iowa constitution upon which the Ames landlords will base their appeal. “The basis of the case is that the city’s rental housing ordinance and related laws violate the equal protection clause of the state constitution,” Meyer said. “We have a situation where, if you are related by blood, you can pack as many people in a house as you want.”

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the equal protection clause in a previous lawsuit, and in doing so, cited a similar occupancy case in California, he said.

Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks said the purpose of the ordinance is to limit the secondary effects that occur when too many unrelated people occupy a unit. She said neighbors were concerned about noise, parking and litter.

Parks said certain areas of the city allow for higher occupancy, but areas that were not originally designed for high occupancy create problems with overcrowding, particularly for parking.

Joe Paulson, a member of the rental property association, said he understands the purpose of the ordinance but feels there is a better way to accomplish the intended results.

“I am not at war with the neighborhood groups, I’m an active member of my own neighborhood group, and I’m not wanting to see neighborhoods turn into slum areas,” Paulson said. “That’s what most neighbors are trying to accomplish; I just don’t think they are going about it in the wisest fashion.”

Paulson said he is concerned that the lawsuit could open a “can of worms” if it wins.

He said because the lawsuit would overturn the ordinance, an unlimited number of occupants would be allowed to occupy units, and that is not the association’s intention.

He said at one time the group had tried to negotiate to allow one person per bedroom, but the city decided against that.

Paulson said limiting occupancy of larger houses to three people has created problems for landlords by forcing them to reduce rental prices.

He said when the landlord has to cover the mortgage, bills and taxes, the first cut to cost comes at the expense of maintenance.

“Now, instead of splitting it five ways, you can only split it three ways,” Meyer said. “People are not in business to lose money.”