Town won't let unmarried parents live together

[Thomas Veil]

Yes, you heard right.

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.This, friends, is what high-and-mighty, Bible-bangin', holier-than-thou "morality" gets us.

Hope this doesn't give any other conservative communities ideas.

CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/unmarried.ap/index.html#)

[riciad]

Do many towns in the U.S. require residents to have an occupancy permit?

[IJ Reilly]

These sorts of provisions are more common than you might think, and were created for less than obvious reasons. A lot of communities have "family" definitions in their zoning codes to prevent residences from being turned into de-facto rooming houses. I only dimly recall the details from my days as a city planner, but it seems to me that this principle has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

[yg17]

Who the hell would want to live in Black Jack is my question. It isn't exactly one of the best areas of St. Louis.

[Thomas Veil]

These sorts of provisions are more common than you might think, and were created for less than obvious reasons. A lot of communities have "family" definitions in their zoning codes to prevent residences from being turned into de-facto rooming houses. I only dimly recall the details from my days as a city planner, but it seems to me that this principle has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.That may be true for particular areas, but is it common for entire towns to be zoned that way (which is what this seems to be)?

[Lau]

Well, that's a damn good advert to anyone with any sense to steer well clear of the place, married or not. What is this, the 1800s?

[IJ Reilly]

That may be true for particular areas, but is it common for entire towns to be zoned that way (which is what this seems to be)?

Yes, the standard would have to apply to the entire community for it to be legal, I think. I know the courts have ruled on these "definition of family" issues, but I'm sorry I don't recall the details.

I'm still trying to get over the name of this city -- Black Jack. Pow, right in the back of the head! You just can't make that kind of stuff up!

[mkrishnan]

I've heard of these kinds of rules being used to limit student roommates as well... I've lived with three roommates in a two-bedroom apartment, as an undergrad -- a situation that would violate this ordinance.

Mmmm, it seems unfortunate to me, though. This is essentially likely to end up driving unwed fathers out of these homes, isn't it? Society wants to complain that they don't contribute, but then rules like this to make it difficult for them to do so. :(

[Dont Hurt Me]

Govt getting into people lives when it should mind its own fricking business. Govt at the local,state and federal level are getting way way to Intrusive.

[Desertrat]

"This is essentially likely to end up driving unwed fathers out of these homes, isn't it?"

mkrishnan: Yup. Just like AFDC.

Don't Hurt Me said, "Govt getting into people lives when it should mind its own fricking business. Govt at the local,state and federal level are getting way way to Intrusive."

Amen! That's what us conservative* types have been bitching about for some forty years, now. Forty years and more back, folks weren't all that politically bothered and exercised except right around election time. The federal gummint was mostly "them", up "there" in WashDC. Very little impact on daily life. To me, the Big Divide came with LBJ's "Great Society". FDR planted the seeds, but LBJ did a lot of fertilizing and cultivating. We've been harvesting ever since.

Some actual good came from all those good intentions. No doubt. But danged near every program from that era has grown and grown and grown. More and more add-ons of regulatory controls. Labels on stepladders. Helmet laws. WOD and WOT laws. And it's not just the feds. Hell's bells, it took an act of Congress to get it made legal to turn right on red after stop. Duh?

Ya gotta have government. But Lord God in Heaven, what we don't need is Leviathan!

'Rat

* Small-c conservative ain't NeoCon nor is it necessarily Republican. Nor is it "Freeze it like it is; no change allowed." To me, it's more "orderly" and "rational" and "better" with these words defined more by consensus than by winning faction.

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, I wasn't going to bother with this, but since this situation has been flopped on the doorstep of the Great Society, I herein provide links to some articles describing the reasoning behind these ordinances, and some of what the courts have said about them over the years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701216.html

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/family.html

[Don't panic]

Okay, I wasn't going to bother with this, but since this situation has been flopped on the doorstep of the Great Society, I herein provide links to some articles describing the reasoning behind these ordinances, and some of what the courts have said about them over the years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701216.html

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/family.html

but under ANY reasonable definition the family in the original article are just that, a family.

[leekohler]

"This is essentially likely to end up driving unwed fathers out of these homes, isn't it?"

mkrishnan: Yup. Just like AFDC.

Don't Hurt Me said, "Govt getting into people lives when it should mind its own fricking business. Govt at the local,state and federal level are getting way way to Intrusive."

Amen! That's what us conservative* types have been bitching about for some forty years, now. Forty years and more back, folks weren't all that politically bothered and exercised except right around election time. The federal gummint was mostly "them", up "there" in WashDC. Very little impact on daily life. To me, the Big Divide came with LBJ's "Great Society". FDR planted the seeds, but LBJ did a lot of fertilizing and cultivating. We've been harvesting ever since.

Some actual good came from all those good intentions. No doubt. But danged near every program from that era has grown and grown and grown. More and more add-ons of regulatory controls. Labels on stepladders. Helmet laws. WOD and WOT laws. And it's not just the feds. Hell's bells, it took an act of Congress to get it made legal to turn right on red after stop. Duh?

Ya gotta have government. But Lord God in Heaven, what we don't need is Leviathan!

'Rat

* Small-c conservative ain't NeoCon nor is it necessarily Republican. Nor is it "Freeze it like it is; no change allowed." To me, it's more "orderly" and "rational" and "better" with these words defined more by consensus than by winning faction.

Here we go again! It's all the fault of the "librools"! As if conservatives haven't caused any damage. Give me break. That's really tired man.

[pdham]

Okay, I wasn't going to bother with this, but since this situation has been flopped on the doorstep of the Great Society, I herein provide links to some articles describing the reasoning behind these ordinances, and some of what the courts have said about them over the years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701216.html

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cnsl/family.html


I am actually in grad school for Urban and Regional Planning. IJ hit it pretty much in the head. These strange ordinances are designed to prevent "undesirable" multi-family homes from popping up in suburban single-family america. The original batch were all written post WWII in the suburbinazation phase and many have already been challenged and failed in front of the courts. I can't remember the case name, but in the 1970s a suburb of Cleveland (or maybe clevland itslef)) was taken to court over a an ordanince very much like the one in question, and it was held to be invalid. This is nothing new, still ridiculous but not new, this ordinance will probably at some point go before the state supreme court and be invalidadted as well.

[mactastic]

IJ hit it pretty much in the head.
Ouch!

[pdham]

Ouch!

That made me laugh so I am not changing the mistake :)

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, I'm staggering around over here, but that's nothing really new.

[IJ Reilly]

but under ANY reasonable definition the family in the original article are just that, a family.

I'm not defending, just explaining.

[Blue Velvet]

What they need is a few polygamous brethren and their ilk to move in. Nice family people.

[pseudobrit]

What they need is a few polygamous brethren and their ilk to move in. Nice family people.

Married, too. That's the part that counts.

[emmawu]

Won't that be nice for the kids. Kids don't feel guilty at all when their parents break up. What a ********* up city!

[solvs]

Here we go again! It's all the fault of the "librools"!
Well we all know how liberal Misery... I mean Missouri is. ;) But I think his point was that this those pushing for this are not conservatives, despite what they call themselves. Did I get that right?

To quote Bill Maher, "I'd be a Republican if only they would". :cool: