Owner occupied used to mean (or at least was accepted) that a member of the family of the owner lived there. This is no longer the case. 

It seems  pretty silly to me that Cynthia Richards and others assume that a family member wouldn't "care for the home without a financial interest." 

Please correct me if Im wrong but doesn't this mean that city officials can demand to see proof of ownership from an occupant? As far as I understand it they have no right to do that without a warrant and unless they have a Police officer there to enforce it I wouldn't give them anything.