[Drammach]

A good lawyer should be able to solve this.

Mrs. T. does not own nor operate a "rental business".
She merely rents rooms within a private dwelling.
The ordnance should not apply in the same manner as it would for someone in the business of rental property.

She should be able to recieve a "waiver" of conditions for room rental within a privately owned residence.
This might require addressing the city council to solve the situation by amending the code, or granting the waiver under special circumstances.

[LibertarianInExile]

Sadly, you're mostly right. But why should anyone need a lawyer to live their lives and do daily business? How simple can the rental business be--I have space, you need space like that space, you pay me to use it. Government as usual has intervened to try to encourage behavior and business it deems 'good,' and that's not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to prevent behavior we ALL deem bad, i.e., criminal behavior.

Screwing around with people's livelihood in the name of 'promoting good,' is just wrong, and someday we'll have a Supreme Court that's activist enough to shut this mess down, or at least force the big government folks to amend the Constitution to be able to do it all.

[Maelstrom]

Solidly entrenched law.

Not even Johnny Cochran would stand a chance arguing in court.

For some reason you seem to think the judges of the Ithaca area are upright, honest people with common sense?

BWAAA HAHAHA!

[Phantom Lord]

If Mrs. T doesnt bother to have rental agreements or leases with those she rents to but rather an unspoken agreement would it make a 'legal' difference?