STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

 Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment where:

          1) Its order granting summary judgment made findings of fact concerning contested issues, and compounded that error by disregarding all of the evidence which strongly suggested that the City’s stated reasons applied exclusively to plaintiffs but not to similiarly-situated housing providers and were thus pretextual.

2) Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the City acted with

discriminatory intent and/or arbitrarily and capriciously.  In particular,

there is evidence of:  a) City officials’ acquiescence to public opposition to Dell Park; b) its multiple attempts to twist its interpretation of its “boarding house” definition to people in recovery but not to college students, young professionals, and snowbirds; c) its failure to develop ADA transition or self-evaluation plans; d) the City’s failure generally to consider the FHAA and the ADA in its treatment of plaintiffs; and e) the City’s failure to develop any mechanism whereby people with disabilities could apply for, or obtain,  reasonable accommodations from application of the City’s zoning laws.

          3) Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the City’s interpretation of its “boarding house” definition to plaintiffs, who are people in recovery and therefore disabled, but not to non-disabled people such as college students, snowbirds, or young professionals had a greater adverse impact on plaintiffs than on non-disabled persons.

      4) Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the City’s failure to respond to plaintiffs’ requests for reasonable accommodations, and as to whether a reasonable accommodation to the City’s  “boarding house” prohibition is appropriate.

       5) Genuine issues of fact exist as to whether Defendant violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and Florida Constitutions.

       6) Genuine issues of disputed fact exist that the City violated plaintiffs’ due process rights.