Since the City of Ames began enforcing its over-occupancy ordinance last October, property owners and students have voiced their disappointment to the Ames City Council.

The council responded by forming a group meeting between landlords, neighborhood representatives and students to identify possible changes to the ordinance. The goal of the mediation was to reach a solution that would make all parties happy.

Students said they disliked the ordinance because the property owners knowingly allowed more than three people to live together, without telling them it was illegal. They said they were equally upset with the city for enforcing the law and its stiff penalties, without giving them any notification or allowing them to find different living arrangements.

Student representative Nicole Garret, senior in zoology, rents a house for $1,000 a month. The payment check that was once split between five people is now split between only three, she said. Garret said she believes students were scapegoats for the housing problem.

“Forcing three students to live in a four- or five-bedroom house isn’t going to solve anything,” she said, including problems such as noise, speeding and parking congestion.

“The residents were certain the core problem was related to over-occupancy,” Garret said. “Some [community] people even thought three students in a house were too many, but a household of six or seven family members was no problem.”

One option both the landlords and students suggested was a special-use permit, which would give landlords authorization to put as many adults in a house as there are bedrooms.

Under this permit, the neighbors would be notified of the extra tenants. Each year the tenants would reapply for the permit. If the previous tenants were too unruly, it could be revoked.

Fern Kupfer, who helped form the South Campus Area Neighborhood, disagrees with the special-permit proposal. She supports the current occupancy law.

“Its a simple ordinance — the special permit would make things more bureaucratic,” said Kupfer, associate professor of English. “We want to make things as simple as possible.”

She also has different sentiments than the students about the over-crowding policy. Kupfer said the over-occupancy of houses caused deterioration of the quality of life in neighborhoods.

“When you have a lot of rental houses it creates a different kind of block than families,” she said. “The houses on my block used to be [rented by] families, but now it’s all student rental. It changes the whole neighborhood. It was a snowballing effect — the more houses that were bought up, the more families left and the block busted.”

Property owners said it was unfair for the council to change the occupancy limits after they purchased property. The owners said the city staff promised them they could rely on the broader occupancy limits they enjoyed before the ordinance passed, or a “grandfathering” concept. However, the final bill didn’t include the grandfather clause.

Al Warren, representative of property owners, said the city misled him and other landlords on the over-occupancy issue.

“There was a lot of confusion,” Warren said. “They promised that we would be grandfathered in, but that never happened. That’s why we originally didn’t oppose the issue — because we thought it would be grandfathered in.”

In the end, no compromise was reached between the three groups. Garret said the students and property owners were flexible, but the community wasn’t.

“They were against any compromise. Both the students and the landlords were trying to make everyone happy, but the community people had what they wanted, and weren’t willing to give on anything,” she said.

Kupfer said the over-occupancy issue was fine the way it was.

“It’s something that didn’t need to be mediated,” she said.