get married or move out of your home

Quote:

---

Move or get married
Imagine you've bought your dream house. And you've moved in. Now, imagine being told you can't live there because you -- and your children -- are not considered a family. That's the situation facing Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three kids in Black Jack, Missouri.

They moved from Minneapolis to the St. Louis suburb a couple of months ago. I visited them recently at their five-bedroom home. They told me Black Jack requires all homes to have an occupancy permit, but that they were denied one. They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

As Black Jack's mayor, Norman McCourt, put it recently at a city council meeting: "It's overcrowding because it's not a single family. It's a single-family residence and they're not a single family."

Olivia and Fondrey aren't married and had two of their three children out of wedlock. The third child is Olivia's from a previous relationship. They appealed to the city's Board of Adjustment for an exemption, figuring it wouldn't be hard for anyone to see they're a real family. But they were denied. Olivia and Fondrey told me they came away from that meeting feeling like they were given a clear message: Get married or move.

"Just because we don't meet your definition of a family doesn't make us any less of a family. ... We've been together for 13 years. ... We're raising three kids together," Olivia said.

So the couple called the ACLU. That's when they discovered at least three other families have had this kind of trouble in Black Jack before. The ACLU showed CNN a letter it says it received from Mayor McCourt in 1999 explaining why another family was being denied an occupancy permit at the time.

"While it would be naive to say that we don't recognize that children are born out of wedlock frequently these days, we certainly don't believe that is the type of environment within which children should be brought into this world," the mayor wrote.

The city has issued a statement saying at least 89 municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar occupancy permit requirements. The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms, but the city now admits its 20-year-old ordinance may not be in step with the times.

And after a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, Black Jack may soften the wording of its ordinance. If the ordinance isn't changed, the ACLU says it will sue the city, arguing it is violating federal fair housing rules and the constitutional right to privacy. In the meantime, all Shelltrack and Loving can do is hope the city won't force them to move.

---

source

If we want to reduce government, this dept. should be the first to go. What a bunch of puritanical extremists

Quote:

---

Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three kids in Black Jack, Missouri.

---

:lol:

I couldn't read any further than that. I'm sure it's a tale of woe and oppression.

Hopefully they will update their ordinance, Vid. And put a plug in their Mayor's mouth right before they oust him from office.

Odd how the idea of what constitutes a "free country" escapes people.

Say or think what you want about the living arrangements; they are in violation of an ordinance, which must be considered the will of the people absent a review overturning it.

One would assume the municipality has done it's due diligence and is not harboring other such trespassers before forcing the issue with these people.

I'd guess there are others, under the radar, so to speak.

Still, I must fall on the side of state/local rights to define their milieu.

Hi, 'Rose. :)

i kind of agree with the mayor from a moral POV.

and if these rules were in place before these noobs moved in. the noobs don't have a case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Odd how the idea of what constitutes a "free country" escapes people.

Say or think what you want about the living arrangements; they are in violation of an ordinance, which must be considered the will of the people absent a review overturning it.

One would assume the municipality has done it's due diligence and is not harboring other such trespassers before forcing the issue with these people.

I'd guess there are others, under the radar, so to speak.

Still, I must fall on the side of state/local rights to define their milieu.

---

So you are for regulation and government interference in your private life on your private land and controlling what you do inside your own home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Odd how the idea of what constitutes a "free country" escapes people.

Say or think what you want about the living arrangements; they are in violation of an ordinance, which must be considered the will of the people absent a review overturning it.

One would assume the municipality has done it's due diligence and is not harboring other such trespassers before forcing the issue with these people.

I'd guess there are others, under the radar, so to speak.

Still, I must fall on the side of state/local rights to define their milieu.

---

So you are for regulation and government interference in your private life on your private land and controlling what you do inside your own home?

---

Roolz iz roolz.

As a state's rights issue, this is classic.

As it is apparent you don't agree with that principle, let us not waste time debating it (again). ;)

states rights do not overrule constitutional rights, and this is not a states rights issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

states rights do not overrule constitutional rights, and this is not a states rights issue

---

Please quote for me the relevant Constitutional clause/amendment bearing on this situation, specifically that which relieves the state/locale of it's authority on such issues, and any which bear precisely on living arrangements, keeping in mind that any cited must have the specific effect of sanctioning this living arrangement.

No weasel-posting, either. :huh:

Good night.

If I am remembering right it is more a Federal Fair Housing Rule, usually backed by States.

I would guess if the ordinance isn't updated it could effect this city's ability to qualify for some state and federal funding for various infrastructure grants they may want to apply for.

I feel it is yet another ordinance that would be difficult to enforce across the board.

But you are right, J2............it is one of the first things they should have checked into before going to the expense to build a new house in any city, especially with this type of ordinance being adopted a lot in that area.

Quote:

---

They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

---

Quote:

---

The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms

---

Surely these two statements are incongruous. In any case, the civil authorities at Black Jack are clearly not responsible for determining the definition of family, so I can't see how they can impose their own limited interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

states rights do not overrule constitutional rights, and this is not a states rights issue

---

Please quote for me the relevant Constitutional clause/amendment bearing on this situation, specifically that which relieves the state/locale of it's authority on such issues, and any which bear precisely on living arrangements, keeping in mind that any cited must have the specific effect of sanctioning this living arrangement.

No weasel-posting, either. :huh:

Good night.

---

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

However this "ordinance" was designed to do something different. It was designed for safety reasons...for example to prevent 20 people living in a 3 bedroom house. Personally I feel even that goes too far. However the local puritans decided they could use the rule to enforce their personal moral agenda.
A 5 bedroom house with 5 occupants hardly meets this "safety" concern.
The council can make exceptions upon application, would they reject 5 students sharing the house?


They said that the occupants were not related and therefore not a family. Yet 2 of the 3 children were born of the 2 parents. So they are denying those children the right to live with both their natural parents because they are not married.
Edit: 3 children blood related to the mother, 2 of these to the father but the 3rd is related by blood to the children of the father of the other 2. yet this is not a family because the parents who have lived together for 13 years are not married? This is not about rules (which are not set in stone) it is about the personal moral agenda of the local councilors.

We have a freedom of religion right in the USA, well if the parents religious beliefs (or even lack of) don't require marriage to raise children or live as a family (which is quite obviously what they are) then this ruling goes against that right.
I hear the argument againts gay people raising children because "children need a mother and father".....is a religious ceremony needed to be a mother and father?..... I say a religious ceremony because marriage has been hijacked as a possesion of religion.... gay people can't marry "because god wanted it to be between a man and a woman"

Would they have a problem with a husband and wife fostering children?


We condemn places like china for interference in private lives........don't we?


Hilary clinton wrote a book called "it takes a village".... instantly conservatives mocked her while praising Rick Santorum for his "it takes a family" book. Yet it seems conservatives believe the village should be involved.:whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Please quote for me the relevant Constitutional clause/amendment bearing on this situation, specifically that which relieves the state/locale of it's authority on such issues, and any which bear precisely on living arrangements, keeping in mind that any cited must have the specific effect of sanctioning this living arrangement.

No weasel-posting, either. :huh:

Good night.

---

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

However this "ordinance" was designed to do something different. It was designed for safety reasons...for example to prevent 20 people living in a 3 bedroom house. Personally I feel even that goes too far. However the local puritans decided they could use the rule to enforce their personal moral agenda.
A 5 bedroom house with 5 occupants hardly meets this "safety" concern.
The council can make exceptions upon application, would they reject 5 students sharing the house?


They said that the occupants were not related and therefore not a family. Yet 2 of the 3 children were born of the 2 parents. So they are denying those children the right to live with both their natural parents because they are not married.
Edit: 3 children blood related to the mother, 2 of these to the father but the 3rd is related by blood to the children of the father of the other 2. yet this is not a family because the parents who have lived together for 13 years are not married? This is not about rules (which are not set in stone) it is about the personal moral agenda of the local councilors.

We have a freedom of religion right in the USA, well if the parents religious beliefs (or even lack of) don't require marriage to raise children or live as a family (which is quite obviously what they are) then this ruling goes against that right.
I hear the argument againts gay people raising children because "children need a mother and father".....is a religious ceremony needed to be a mother and father?..... I say a religious ceremony because marriage has been hijacked as a possesion of religion.... gay people can't marry "because god wanted it to be between a man and a woman"

Would they have a problem with a husband and wife fostering children?


We condemn places like china for interference in private lives........don't we?


Hilary clinton wrote a book called "it takes a village".... instantly conservatives mocked her while praising Rick Santorum for his "it takes a family" book. Yet it seems conservatives believe the village should be involved.:whistling

---

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.[/QUOTE]


Yes, like you said. :D Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Puritans, conservatives, freedom of religion, blah, blah.

Here is a much simpler way of saying it without having to call names, bring up conservative/liberal stances, or throw in useless things like freedom of religion in a non religious topic:

The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law.

---

did you miss the first line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

IMO. the 14th ammendment.

---

It is fine just saying "The 14th amendment section 1 states that federal law trumps state law." but without suggesting which federal law or laws then surely it's an empty statement in relation to any specific subject.

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

---

As I posted, I whittled your post down, took out the name calling, the conservative/liberal stances, and took out the whole of the freedom of religion thing as it was completely useless when replying to someone asking you to point out a particular part of the constitution.

Dig all you like, it was still "weasle-posting"

then answer my question

Quote:

---

what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above?

---

feel free to ignore anything I post but it's not up to you to dictate the rules of how anyone posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyMetalParkingLot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

as to the rest, what would you suggest the basis of such rules or interpretation is if none of the above? Perhaps you just like scratching the surface of a subject but I like to dig deeper. How can you understand something if you don't look at why it that way?

---

As I posted, I whittled your post down, took out the name calling, the conservative/liberal stances, and took out the whole of the freedom of religion thing as it was completely useless when replying to someone asking you to point out a particular part of the constitution.

---

I think you did a very good whittling job. An agendaectomy almost.

i really hate all this talk of agendas, i just don't think its realistic to think that anyone on this board has one. Seeing things in a certain way and posting about it, is called a point of view not an agenda.
Imo its only a small step up from calling someone a liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

i really hate all this talk of agendas, i just don't think its realistic to think that anyone on this board has one.

---

That's sweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Odd how the idea of what constitutes a "free country" escapes people.

Say or think what you want about the living arrangements; they are in violation of an ordinance, which must be considered the will of the people absent a review overturning it.

One would assume the municipality has done it's due diligence and is not harboring other such trespassers before forcing the issue with these people.

I'd guess there are others, under the radar, so to speak.

Still, I must fall on the side of state/local rights to define their milieu.

Hi, 'Rose. :)

---

Will of the people? What does a man and woman living together have to do with anyone else?

I'd love to see a town pass an ordinance forbiding folks from living together unless they are unrelated by blood or marriage.

It would be the will of the people ya see.

It's funny to hear folks spout off that it was their fault for not checking into the ordinance beforehand. Who the fuck woulda thunk o this shit?

I wouldn't be surprised if this violates some federal law which would mean this "ordinance" means shit.

This is like the bullshit law where it says a person wouldn't be able to ass-fuck in privacy of their own home.

Some shit boils down to a wee bit of fair logic.

I wonder does this "ordinance" account for adoption. Could I adopt 4 kids, buy the house, and the county say fuck-off?

Busy, is it logical that you check applicable gun laws in a City that you are considering carrying them in? Or do you 'think' to do that?

My opinion is that government AT ANY LEVEL has no place making rules like this to start with. Structural building codes are fine, codes regarding the outer appearance of a residence are fine. Codes that prohibit nuisance that affects others, eg. noise, fumes, litter or smoke are fine.
If a private landlord chooses not to rent to unmarried couples that's his choice. That may seem repugnant but it's his property and he can rent it as he pleases.
Interference in personal relationships and life choices in the privately owned home is off limits.

Edit:Actually if you look at the ordinance, you could be living with someone else, or be unmarried with one child. But have two children and unmarried, NOPE can't live there.

Quote:

---

They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

---

disclaimer.

The poster has not included every possibility such as government agencies entering the private home in cases of neglect or abuse of children or during a disturbance or with warrant duely issued for law enforcement. The ommision of such in no way indicates that the poster has ignored such scenarios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Busy, is it logical that you check applicable gun laws in a City that you are considering carrying them in? Or do you 'think' to do that?

---

Use the noggin, Evey. It's friggin' guns you are talking about not living in a domicile which is very basic.

It's very easy to say that they should have thought about checking the ordinances now. The fact is it perfectly reasonable to assume that one could move into a 5-bedroom house with 3 adopted kids yet in this town ya can't.

Furthermore, the intention of the "ordinance" has been stated but the townsfolk are going past it's intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

My opinion is that government AT ANY LEVEL has no place making rules like this to start with. Structural building codes are fine, codes regarding the outer appearance of a residence are fine. Codes that prohibit nuisance that affects others, eg. noise, fumes, litter or smoke are fine.
If a private landlord chooses not to rent to unmarried couples that's his choice. That may seem repugnant but it's his property and he can rent it as he pleases.
Interference in personal relationships and life choices in the privately owned home is off limits.

---

That all seems very sensible to me. Live and let live and if they aren't hurting anyone else, leave them alone.

It strikes me that this law is intended for some other scenario, however some jobsworth said "the law's the law and it's the same for everyone".

Quote:

---

The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms

---

I bet boarding houses are ok when they are registered, ie when the council gets its cut.

I wonder what excuse the council would come up with if they applied to register as a boarding house.

Busy, to me, it is about covering your bases. :) A necessary thing to do these days. Lay off my noggin. I use it so constantly that sometimes it just needs a good rest.;)

Vid, I agree with you on these ordinances. From my experiences with the drafting and enforcing of them............a Council usually will not pass one unless they have a vocal percentage of the population pushing for it or it is a safety or sanitary issue. They are also always published, and usually available online for review. What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

It would be interesting to see the ordinance itself to try to ascertain what the intent was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Busy, to me, it is about covering your bases. :) A necessary thing to do these days. Lay off my noggin. I use it so constantly that sometimes it just needs a good rest.;)

Vid, I agree with you on these ordinances. From my experiences with the drafting and enforcing of them............a Council usually will not pass one unless they have a vocal percentage of the population pushing for it or it is a safety or sanitary issue. They are also always published, and usually available online for review. What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

It would be interesting to see the ordinance itself to try to ascertain what the intent was.

---

From the article it says what the intent was although the ordinance is not shown.

As far as what you think one should check for when moving, I apologize.

Apparently it must be common knowledge that unmarried couples with more than 1 kid must check to see if they can live in a domcile in America that they paid for.

Knowing how it is on my little side of America in the DC area, it would have been the last thing on my radar. Actually for that matter, not on my radar.

I do forget that we do live in a country where my land can be taken if someone else can put something on it to raise it's property value so maybe the unmarried plus-1 kid rule should've bust me upside the head too.

What the fuck was I thinking?:stars:

I'm glad I plan on getting married before giving wifey the squirt that counts.:ermm:

edit: I wonder was this ordinance passed via referendum or a 6 outta 10 council vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

What never ceases to amaze me is that these are passed, after being published for a couple of weeks in the paper, without anyone disputing them.

---

Are you suggesting that people are totally apathetic about how they are ruled, until the rules jump up and bite them on the arse? You may be onto something there, try getting the figures for the turnout at the last election in Black Jack, that may give you some sort of a clue about how much people care.

If you can also get a demographic on those who actually gave enough of a fuck to vote, you may have cracked it. You may even know who is making the rules and on behalf of whom they are making them.