New house and a home "snake" business

Ball pythons. The puppy dog of the snake world

From a city, county, and state perspective I'm good.....it's just the darn covenants.

I went so far as to contact a real estate attorney. More or less he said it was a bad idea to live in a covenant where you were in violation. He also said that the definition of "common household pet" would most likely not include reptiles. It would be shakey ground legally.

So basically the city will allow them (them being snakes, geckos, etc.), you can buy them at local pet stores, BUT you can't find a home in the city limits without a covenant where you could be sued because you keep them. (the likelyhood of someone sueing a neighbor over their single leopard gecko is I'd say almost nil....but it's still technically a violation)

I'm looking in different areas now (smaller towns) hoping I can find either a more "liberal" subdivision or an AG zoned plot of land to build a house on.

Weird.

I guess maybe it's because I'm from a very rural area, but the whole idea of these "covenants" and such just seem totally off the wall to me, and the fact that you can't find a home NOT ruled by one actually kind of creeps me out, lol. I just don't get it.

At least you don't keep large snakes, at least you have one thing going for you.

May I ask what area of the state you're in?

I currently live in Cedar Rapids (which currently has a "NO CONSTRICTOR" ordinance) As such the M.W. Reptiles business is partnered with another herp keeper in rural Toddville, Iowa and that's where everything is kept for the group. Makes maintenence on him pretty bad but I help out as much as possible and do all the sales, webpage design, and inventory so he has less to worry about.

My hope was to move to the Iowa City corridor area, or more specifically North Liberty so that I could avoid a city ordinance banning the balls and keep my own snakes at my house for once.

The covenants seem very wrong to me. They have such things as minimum landscaping requirements, no RVs, your house color has to be on the approved color list, etc.

This sounds cliche but they seem "very unamerican"

I currently live in Cedar Rapids (which currently has a "NO CONSTRICTOR" ordinance)

Which of course include the deadly and vicious rubber boas, and kenyan sand boas.

Let me show you mine (bear with me it's a rural area):

6.11. Animals, Livestock, and Poultry

Animals, Livestock, and Poultry shall be limited to two horses and two goats (amendment which I was able to negotiate prior to closing) as long as they are not maintained for commercial purposes (imagine what a business I can run with a pair of each!) and do not make objectionable noises or become an annoyance or nuisance of any sort to the neighborhood and remaining land owners. This would include no accumulation of manure that would cause annoyance or nuisance. [b] No cows, other animals or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot. A reasonable number of domestic household pets, such as dogs and cats, may be kept, provided they are not maintained for commercial purposes and do not make objectionable noises or become and annoyance or nuissance of any sort to the neighborhood.

Maybe we should start by removing the name "exotic" from all retiles. If we woould fortunate enough and have them labeled "household pets" in the future, we might be able to circumvent a lot of this nonsense.

Exactly. It's really funny if you read the "dangerous animals" listing in the ordinance and think about it.

No lions, tigers, wild cats etc.
No alligators or crocadiles
No bears
No wolves
No venomous or constricting snakes

While at first glance it seems reasonable (which is probably why it passed) if you dig into the constricting snakes part it would mean that that 12 inch kenyan sand boa you have is along the same lines as a bear.

Very silly.

Sorry hit submitt instead of spell check:

Maybe we should start by removing the name "exotic" from all reptiles. If we would be fortunate enough and have them labeled "household pets" in the future, we might be able to circumvent a lot of this nonsense.

http://www.columbiapa.org/courts/opi...0of%202001.rtf

In the previous court case they concluded that they could not say that snakes were not household pets.

I believe that if you were taken to court for not having "household pets" and had a good lawyer you could win.....atleast I'd hope so.

John,

This is the kind of thing that we need to prove. If we fight agaisnt we will certainly loose. If we fight to prove that snakes are household pets we might have a case. If you don't mind I'm going to use this thread to open another thread using this information to start the discussion.

Thanks!

By all means go right ahead.

Thanks!