Here's a perfect example of those "family values" we're always hearing about. The town of Black Jack, Missouri is going to evict a family from their home because they don't meet the town's definition of a family. By any definition, it's a family - a man, a woman, and her three children. But they're not married, so they don't meet the town's definition. And the city council sounds like a real set of winners:
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...
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.
What business is it of theirs? If someone wants to rent or sell their home to a family like this, or for that matter to 8 unrelated people who are all roommates, what possible business is it of those who do not own that property? The notion that a city council can simply declare that certain types of people can't live in their town is beyond ridiculous.
- Log in to post comments
The original purpose of these laws was to outlaw whorehouses, without having to prove that prostitution was actually occuring there. I think many of them actually limited it by the number of unmarried unrelated females were in the house. Nice to see them using outdated laws to persecute a new class of people they don't like. More evidence for why we should have sunsets on all laws.
Bastards.
Is this even constitutional?
On Long Island, the same law is now being used to restrict immigrant laborers from living there since they can't afford to live in the over-priced condos without cramming ten or fifteen people each. It seems the rich white suburbanites don't like seeing unskilled illegal labor lining up on the roads near their homes and would rather they go back to the city to find jobs. Nevermind that they don't mind having them work on their homes if it'll save a few bucks.
I'm with Dexceus here. I hear about this sort of thing from time to time and I'm always curious as to the constitutionality. Doesn't the 14th amendment prevent this sort of thing? I mean, can they say "no black people" in a deep southern town? Seems beyond absurd that they can get away with this even for a day.
I think incidents like this is why we all contribute to the ACLU...or should if we don't.
Is this even constitutional?
I'm with Dexceus here. I hear about this sort of thing from time to time and I'm always curious as to the constitutionality.
Yeah like the religious right moral police would let something tiny like the Constitution stand in their way on the path to letting us know what immoral heathens we all are.
Zoning has been accepted as constitutional by the Supreme Court. Cities can designate areas for particular uses, including single-family residences. There has to be some definition of a single family, and that's what Black Jack chose. I think in most cases single-family zoning is intended to prevent apartment houses, duplexes and boarding houses. In this case the zoning ordinance is being used for purposes other than the intended purpose, and it might be possible to challenge it on that basis. It also might be possible to challenge it on the basis of the definition of relationship.
this should be unconstitutional. in moore v. city of east cleveland scotus struck down an ordinace that prohibited a grandmother, her son, and two grandchildren from living in one home. like you said, there is no state interest to justify the intrusion into the home.
the caveat is that moore was a plurality decision written in 1977. needless to say, the court's outlook has changed a bit since then.
In northern Colorado these type of zoning laws are common. In my city in most areas no more than 3 unrelated people may share a residence. This is to keep students (it's a college town) from renting areas in nice neighborhoods which of course makes things nicer for all the middle income families, but makes life harder for struggling students, as it would be easy for 4 or 5 students to get together and have a nice house, but instead they have to contend with cheap rundown apartments and basement studios (I know, because I am one).
Its frustrating, and it flies in the face of the concept of being able to do what you want with your own property (as long as it doens't affect others).
Also, this is just one more example of why being against gay-marriage actually prevents gays from having equal status. If the couple in question were gay, they wouldn't even have the option of getting married, and couldn't live together in that town in spite of how commited they may be to each other.
Sad.
Exactly why Lyndon Johnson said we should think harder about how a law will be misused than about how we mean for it to be used.
On the question of the constitutionality of the law, I certainly would argue that it is unconstitutional based both on the 9th and 14th amendments. While the Court has accepted the legality of zoning regulations, that does not mean that all zoning regulations are acceptable and there are still plenty of such regulations that would be unconstitutional. And in this case, it's not really a zoning regulation at all as it restricts them from living anywhere in the entire city, not just a small part of it.
The original purpose of these laws was to outlaw whorehouses
As if there were no simpler ways of dealing with them.
Of course I think this law is stupid and possibly unconstitutional, but that aside, the math doesn't work out for me:
The children are living with their parents, with whom I assume they are related, at least that's the way they make it sound, so they are not in violation of the law.
Each parent is related to each of the 3 children, so they are only living with 1 person that is not related to them - the other parent.
I don't see how they are violating the ordinance.
Side note: Would it somehow be better if they were related, having children together, and not married?
Ed, I pointed out that zoning laws are constitutional since some of the comments seem to imply disagreement with the concept of zoning ordinances. But if it applies to the entire city, does that mean they exclude duplexes and apartment houses? Anyway, as the previous commenter said, surely at least four of the five are related by blood, so it seems they meet the requirements of the ordinance. I think they need a lawyer.
They probably got Dembski to do the math.
If I recall correctly (I read about this when it first came up over a year ago), the father in this case is not the biological father of the three children.
Hey, keep your co-ed naked BBQs away from my backyard!
Seriously though, these kinds of laws are incredibly common. Counties, cities, neighborhood CC&Rs, etc., all put us very far away from the concept of doing what you want with your property.
I tend to doubt that this ordinance was intended to capture this case when it was written. Most "single family residence" definitions that I have seen (not that I've seen that many) are looking for three or more unrelated adults. I find it incomprehensible that the children, who are blood relatives to at least one parent (I think it was the mother here) count against them.
If this unmarried couple had only one child, they would presumably have no problem moving in. WTF?
You mean to tell me there's really a town in this country named Black Jack?
The law as it stands here is such that if there are more than three adults living in a residence, and they aren't all related, than its a no go. So two married couples... nope. A father, mother, their 20 year old daughter, and a friend down on hard times... nope.
There are of course creative ways around it. The fraternity I lived in (Triangle wooo! Architects, Scientists, and Engineers! Ya we were awesome!) had each room classified as a seperate residence. But still, creative legal loopholes aside, I believe its an amazing abuse of local power.
Hey, keep your co-ed naked BBQs away from my backyard!
Yeah! Send them to MY backyard!
I feel foolishly naive reading this thread. I am shocked, really, that in the USA, the government can tell me who I choose to share my home with.
I think Seraphym brings up a good point, when I have heard of similar laws, they restrict the number of unrelated adults, not unrelated individuals, which probably comes closer to a Constitutional attempt to limit group houses and houses of ill-repute, if that is indeed the point of the laws. The law in this town seems, IMHO, to go too far in limiting the sheer number of people in a home. Interestingly, it would also prevent a foster family from taking in more than two siblings.
I have to wonder, as well, whether there isn't a little racism going on with the family in this specific case. The father is black, the mother is white, and the children appear to be biracial (so if the father is not their biological father, I am still guessing the biological father was black).