AUBURN — An attempt to add LGBT protections to the City of Auburn’s fair housing standards ordinance failed at a meeting of the Common Council Tuesday.
Councilman Mike Walter moved to amend a new ordinance by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protections against discrimination in housing. The other protections are for race, color, religion, sex, handicap and national origin.
Walter also moved to add a sentence to the ordinance stating: “It shall furthermore be the policy of the City of Auburn to provide for fair housing throughout its corporate limits for individuals without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
His motion died for lack of a second.
The council unanimously passed an ordinance with two slight changes to the previous fair housing standards. The changes were recommended by Indiana Office of Rural and Community Affairs, and one partially dealt with LGBT rights.
To be eligible for OCRA grant money, the city had to comply with the recommended changes. The city is applying for a $500,000 Main Street Revitalization Grant to help fund the proposed 6th and Main Streetscape Project.
The changes included a clause that if any one provision of the ordinance is found to be invalid, the entire ordinance could not be discounted. The new ordinance also guarantees equal access to housing and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development programs.
The ordinance also now defines a family regardless of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identification or marital status.
Councilman Todd Sanderson said he read the state requirements and found them to be too long.
“There’s plenty already here. We point to that and say, ‘Here’s what we go by.’ That would be my suggestion. Adding on additional requirements above the state and federal, I feel this amendment is pretty long.”
Walter said it would benefit Auburn to be open and welcoming to all people.
“I’m hearing the economic development gurus say, ‘We don’t have enough skill people in this part of the state. We need to get people to live here and work here, and bring their skills,’” he said. “I think you bring in more workers if you create an atmosphere where they feel welcome. Are you going to live in the 21st century?”
“No, I’m not,” Sanderson replied.
“It’s a free country, you can live in any century you want,” Walter said. “I think the rest of America is in the 21st century. We’re doing it for the money, I know that, but wouldn’t it be nice to do something because it’s right?”
“No,” Sanderson answered.
Walter also questioned the definition of family in the ordinance, asking if it would apply to a single individual. He said the ordinance defined familial status as having at least one person younger than 18 living with their parents or someone who has custody of them.
Walter said he found the wording vague and uncertain.
“We’re asking OCRA what our ordinance needs to say,” City Attorney Erik Weber said. “We haven’t answered all the questions of what should be in this and what shouldn’t be. We know what their guidance is.
“Adding other things in, could it be in? I guess it could be in, but that’s for all of you to decide. I know the object of the game here is we want to be able to do the grant.”
Councilman Kevin Webb also posed questions about the ordinance, and said he was concerned there is not enough local control.
“My issue with this is it follows what the state wants. We don’t have a housing commission,” Webb said. “We don’t enforce this. Anything that would come up on this would be referred to state or federal officials.”