It’s a good thing they’re married, otherwise they’d be out on the street!
Associated Press – May 17, 2006:
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.
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.
This will *never* withstand legal challenge.
There are people with an up-to-date education in Missouri. Just not in government.
Ya for yet another Enlightened RED States Compassion and Family values… As long as it’s on their terms. đ Marring your Cousin is OK but living in “SIN” LMAO
The sounds like something the religous right would be pushing, yet another reason for church/state seperation
I don’t care about the marriage angle; this ordance is stupid in any case.
What if you actually own a house there…how can they evict you from something you own? Will they pay your house payments? Will they buy back your house at market value?
Marriage is bondage. It basically puts a price on one’s head by declaring eachother property of the other. It literally is a contract. A contract on love? Marriage is the most ridiculous phenomena of soceity. It is FORCE. Look at how many stay married because of what they will “lose” if they got a divorce. A piece of paper is the master and two humans its’ slaves. People who want to demonstrate TRUE love should do everything a so-called marriage tries to accomplish but without a written social contract. You WANT that contract, though, don’t you? What if one day your wife falls in love with another man? Then at least you have a marriage contract to coerce her into staying with you so you won’t lose her. What does she give you? Oh, I see, you can’t lose all those years you invested, that pussy that you are going to miss, the financial losses you will incur, the emotional attachment you have because your happiness is based not on yourself but on another human being. Marriage is such a sucker bet. It is an old idea that people hold onto because people cannot truly TRUST themselves or their partners. Remember, you can still have a wedding ceremony with the white dress and tux, go on a honeymoon, etc. without signing a legal contract to bondage–take away someone else’s freedom, to enslave–a human being into a forced relationship.
If a couple REALLY loves eachother they would be opposed to marriage.
From the article: “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.”
Wow. You can buy a house there – and move into it – without first obtaining an “occupancy permit”???
Shouldn’t that be a part of closing?? Or is it so rarely an issue that people expect it to be a rubber-stamp procedure?
Black Jack is in a very blue part of a “Red” state.
Don’t hear St. Louis getting accused of being a hot bed of cousin marriage…
I certainly don’t agree with this rule, but this red state crap. Guess what, most of the country are red states. Maybe San Francisco would be better, where you can do anything you want, except maybe support your government.
The whole licensing of marriages started in the 1800’s to require government permission of interracial unions. There’s no real reason why a government granted license should be required for something that has always existed under common law and earlier.
But what it does is make the government a legal party to the contract of marriage, and a say over the products of that marriage (i.e. property and children). The tentacles of government reach deep.
And to think that once we thought Osama was the number one threat to America… It is ourselves.
The rest of the world just sits back and watches as we implode.
10 – Thank you for pointing out that Black Jack is actually a dominantly democrat section of an already “blue” region (St. Louis) of a “red” state.
5 – I think your comments prove to that stupidity is definitely not confined to “fly-over country”.
I point and laugh at anyone dumb enough to think this is some group of hicks pushing religion. There’s a serious debate in this story, one clearly above the idiots on the coasts.
James,
You are correct, but I dont think you are correct the way you think you are. Googling around on this story, the Mayor and council cant seem to get their story straight on this being a marriage issue or an over crowding issue. If it is a crowding issue, how does being married change anything here? If it is a marriage issue, why is one illegitimate child ok, but not three?
Also, they cant just get married becaues one of the three children is not the fathers, and using the current narrow definition of family the city is using, they will still be two famlies if they get married, because one of the children is not his. Blood, marriage and adoption is standard city has set . So they have to adopt in addition to getting married.
Then googling around some more, and finding the local boards and it turns out this is also about miscegenation. See both the local black and white stupid fundy hicks have a problem with that particular thorny issue.
This has to be a clear violation of our right to assemble freely and to be equal before the law (married couples are a specially protected class in this case.)
I hope they fight this in court and bankrupt the town.
Greg,
Blackjack, for a long time, has had problems with segregation, miscegenation, and the like. You’re right that this is a hornet’s nest of issues rolled into one, and not just one specific topic, but nevertheless it represents a serious conversation that each community needs to have. Passing the debate off for any reason is foolish.
I too was amazed to see that an âoccupancy permitâ is required. I hope they don’t require an “eating permit” before they can buy food. Jokes aside, though, I do see the original point of this law. How would you like the house next door to become a frat house or a halfway house for addicts? A law that restricts the number of unmarried people that can live together is one way to prevent certain living arrangements that can be detrimental to property values. The law probably just didn’t foresee the sort of “unmarried couple with 3 kids” scenario that it has disallowed here.
The couple has made a mistake, though, in their approach for a remedy. What were they thinking in trying to change the definition of “family”? Have they learned nothing from our current political climate? Turn the TV to FOX News and you’ll discover that the American family is under attack (not to mention Christmas) as never before! Maybe there are details that make this couple’s approach look less ill-advised, but there must be a better way to amend this ordinance without changing the definition of “family.” Geez.
“I do see the original point of this law. How would you like the house next door to become a frat house or a halfway house for addicts?”
The solution to that is simple. Make the limit 6 or 10. How many frat houses do you know with merely three members?! Obviously by making the number of occupants so low the purpose was not to eliminate frat houses or halfway houses.
Yeah – I want to live with a couple buddies at university next year (in a completely different city) If we wanted to find a 4th guy to split the rent, we wouldn’t be allowed … retarded, as long as we keep out property clean – and if they made it not so that all the group had to be related by blood, marriage, or adoption, just that you could use those links to trace everyone together, it would be fine – the two parents would be able to say the other one was the blood parent of their child – problem solved – raising the occupancy limit would help too.
Have any of you ever been to Blackjack? Evicting people from there is the best thing you can do for them! With the money the first few people evicetd will win in court for damages they will be able to move to Clayton or Ladue. That’il fix em!!!!
Where we are living at the moment in the Bay area, they limit the number, not by actual bodies or relationships, but by square footage. There is a set amount of square footage required for 2 people, then for each person added the required square footage of the house goes up a certain amount.
Of course no one follows the formula, because rents and mortages are so high here that the normal numbers of people can’t pay them.
#23, in saying “I do see the original point of this law,” I should have said “this TYPE of law” instead. I agree the limit 3 seems a little low, and I’ll be the first to admit that the examples I pulled out of the air were a little off the mark (where was my head?). But I just now did a quick search and found that Anderson Cooper wrote about this recently, saying:
“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.”
He wrote that back in April, so it pre-dates this current story about their failure to change the ordinance. I still think that trying to change the definition of “family” within the ordinance was not the brightest tactic, given our current political climate. And trust me, I’m a frequent critic of our current political climate.
I understand the ACLU has taken up the case as it discriminates against unmarried people. Also the house has five bedrooms so this is not a room issue. I agree that any limits on how many people could live there should be tied to the actual space, not the relationships.
Back in O-HI-O where my Mom is from, most of the small college towns have similar laws. Limiting *occupancy by unmarried co-habitors*, it’s not so low of a number as this, but it’s to keep landlords from renting out bathrooms to students as housing. Most of the little towns have limited housing and they use these laws to keep the numbers in the houses with in reason.
:”clearly, these people are yokels.”
Thanks, as always Paul, for keeping us focused on the truth!
Most cities have some sort of oridinace requiring occupancy. I can tell we don’t have many builders, landlords or home owners in the group. Any occupancy permit is needed before a building can be used and must be approved as safe by the local building, planning or zoning department.
Most communities also set up zones limiting the use of a property in a certain area prohibiting the person living next door to you from raising pigs in the back yard or starting a manufacturing facility that pounds out steel all day and all night. Most zones are set as C-1, C-2, R-1, R-2 and R-M. That is Light Commercial, Heavy Commercial, Single Family Residence, 2 Family Residence (Duplex) and Multiple family residence. The idea is that some people don’t want to live next to a boarding house or a frat house. They think their house will be worth more if they are in a “family” neighborhood, not in a college student block. They are probably right.
Right now in Monroe MI, 2 Viet Nam veterans tried to live in the same house and because they are not family nor do they have sexual realtions with each other they have been evicted from the house by the City. Viet nam Veterans of America and the ACLU has taken up the case but after a two year battle still have not won so I would not say this case was a slam dunk.
Also there are many people who are unmarried and taking advantage of the head of household rules on the tax return and getting tremendous tax benefits out of it but are still able to afford the rent because there are two wage earners who support the family but it looks like two single family households on paper. This results in all the people who are single or even those who are married to pay a much higher tax. This isn’t fair either.
Hmmm???
I chanced on this matter entirely by accident. At first blush some of the irate comments make sense. Nonetheless this is not as simple as it seems. I believe the solution does not need be the test of the definition of “family” Sometimes I’m so far left that I’m right so to speak or I might be so far right that I’m wrong. Its not so simple. The and developers have rights too. I have bought and sold a number of properties and have always had better luck with tenants in small numbers. Also I do not have the disdain for marriage shown by some here. It is a contractual institution that has supplied solidarity and strength to many and has stood the test of time until recently.
The argument that many of our fifficulties today stem from the breakdown of families and the cohesiveness they offer hqas considerable merit. It might be interesting to note that I havejust been fondly recalling memories as I read a recent article on the Hutterite Colony in Surprise Creek. http://www.ngm.com
I am a resident and very politically active in the city of Black Jack.
Our township is fairly mixed in its racial make-up although due to white flight and realtor gearing there has been a heighten increase of African American home owners in the area .
Here again is an area where we as a people need to take action. When government feels it can come into your home and into your bedroom and sanction consenting adults by micro managing the concept of “Familyâ we are losing the âFreedomsâ that this country was founded upon.
Please aid this family by emailing via http://www.cityofblackjack.com
Contact the state legislator: Theodore.Hoskins@house.mo.gov or friendsofhoskins@aol.com
It sounds like the mayor of blackjack is enforceing his beliefs on the people in his city, where something like that issue should be put to vote buy the residence of that city. And keeping in mine that , any american has the right too , live ,vote,say, and go where ever they like , that is what I throught we called freedom? Stephen O