FAC Weekly Update 2025-12-09-Maze of Housing Restrictions Cause Clustering

Weekly update for December 9, 2025. This is recording number 343.

Dear Members and Advocates,

The most consistent hardship reported by our members is the challenge of securing compliant housing. For anyone on Florida’s registry, the process is not simply a matter of searching for an affordable rental. It begins with navigating a maze of overlapping laws—State Statutes, County ordinances, and City ordinances—each layer more restrictive than the last.

Florida’s State Statute already imposes onerous residency restrictions. But counties rarely stop there. If a county ordinance were less restrictive than the state standard, it would default to the state’s rules—so instead, counties add additional distance requirements or expand the number of restricted landmarks. Cities then do the same, creating yet another layer of rules that must be followed simultaneously. The result is a patchwork of conflicting, overlapping laws that leave registrants with tiny pockets—if any—where they are legally allowed to live.

Once the statutory maze is decoded, the next step is identifying all the restricted landmarks. Some, like schools and parks, can be found visually or on Google Maps (for those fortunate enough to have internet access). But others, such as school bus stops or the vague and ever-expanding category of “places where children congregate,” are not easily located. Most jurisdictions do not publish maps of these locations. FAC has asked several sheriff’s offices to provide us with these maps and they have refused (they probably don’t even exist). And because exclusion zones are measured “as the crow flies,” the practical reality of how far you must travel is irrelevant. A home technically within 2,500 feet of a school—even if separated by an eight-lane highway, a river, and private property you cannot legally cross—is still off-limits.

After that, you must create your own map overlay to determine which residential parcels fall outside every applicable exclusion zone. Then comes the next barrier: even if a property is legally permissible, that does not mean you can live there. Apartment complexes and communities with homeowners associations almost always reject applicants with felony backgrounds, especially registrants. That narrows the field to single-family homes—which are often unaffordable—or to mobile home parks, some of which have become de facto registrant communities simply because they are the only places left that will consider renting to someone on the registry.

And the struggle doesn’t end there. Even among landlords willing to rent to registrants, available units are limited, competition for rentals is fierce due to the ongoing housing shortage, and many property owners fear neighbor complaints, vandalism of their property, insurance issues, and perceived drops in property value. If you have children of your own, the obstacles multiply; you must live far away from schools and bus stops, yet still find a way to get your kids to school. Add to that the need to remain close to employment, public transportation, or treatment providers, and the set of viable options shrinks even further.

Given these realities, it should surprise no one that many individuals on the registry end up clustered in certain trailer parks, motels, or group homes. These are the only remaining places where the law allows them to live and where select landlords will accept them.

Which brings us to recent developments. Lawmakers are now complaining about clusters of registrants living in certain trailer parks, motels or group homes. They are trying to come up with laws to address the apparent “loopholes” in the law that allow too many registrants to live in the same area. These are not “schemes” or “loopholes” and the problem is nationwide. Fresno, California recently announced a proposal to restrict the number of registrants allowed to reside at the same property. But if group living is restricted, where are people supposed to go? That question just happens to be more urgent here in Florida, where laws are the harshest. Putnam County recently enacted an ordinance prohibiting registrants from living within 500 feet of one another. When asked about the rule, Commission Chair Leota Wilkinson said the ordinance sends a strong message: “If you’ve offended, then you might not wanna come and live in Putnam County.” What she didn’t say—and what needs to be emphasized—is that there are 66 other counties in Florida that feel exactly the same way.

Lawmakers are scratching their heads about “clusters” of registrants living in certain neighborhoods or multiple registrants sharing the same trailer park or motel. But these situations aren’t evidence of lax laws that need to be strengthened – they are the direct consequence of hyper-restrictive laws! When you draw ever-tightening circles on the map and push people into smaller and smaller areas, you inevitably force them into the same streets, and sometimes the same property. Legislators created this problem, not registrants. Registrants are not choosing a dilapidated trailer over living with their families—they are being legally barred from doing anything else. These are the only places they can live!

So this week’s update contains some good news. Thanks to those of you who came through on our matching campaign, we met our interim funding goals for the municipal challenges we wanted to bring and lawsuits will be filed against two Florida Counties in the coming months. Details will be announced as soon as they can be made public, but if you’ve followed our forum, you probably know what’s coming… and that’s hopefully more housing options!

Sincerely,

The Florida Action Committee