Letters to the Editor
-
But they are related?
I can't access the People article, but the other article claims that the oldest son is the woman's and another man's, and the two younger sons are the woman's and her fiance's. So, how are these people "three or more people not related by blood?" The two youngest are blood relations of everyone in the house.
-
That stinks
That's really all I have to say, it stinks to kick people out of their homes simply because they aren't married! Besides, who's to say it's not 5 young men starting out who can't afford to live on their own, why do people want so much control over the people who live around them???? Shit, if they had that law in San Francisco half my friends would be homeless!
-
Easy solution
If it was really about overcrowding, they could simply change the ordinance to say "not more than 3 unrelated adults". Also, it would be very easy to not enforce the ordinance. Lots of places have laws on the books and people just look the other way.
When I was in college they passed a similar law in the town I lived because so many of us college students were living in off-campus housing in that one particular town. They didn't even enforce it then - it was only used when a party house got too out of control.
-
Supreme Court
People, exactly this kind of law was ruled to be unconstitutional by the supreme court. all these people have to do is sue the town. they have heavy precedent behind them.
-
well....
I don't think that the ordinance should be enforced against people like this-in fact, since they are living as a family unit, they may even fit the definition. But in defense of the rules, I have lived in small university town. In quiet residential neighborhoods, absent landlords will rent houses to 5, 6, even as many as 8 college students. The students often do not mow the lawn, shovel the sidewalk, keep decent hours, or allow owners the quiet enjoyment of their homes, throwing trash about during late night loud parties, etc. Neighbors have limited options, and calling the police for everything...well. How can a city with limited resources ensure that such households do not negatively impact all the neighbors?
At least with a limited definition of family (based on the zoning in the small city I lived in, with more unrelated persons per unit in higher density areas), there is a reason to serve a notice of eviction.
In the small city I lived in, persons living together, together with their children, would not have been targeted...that is, since the mother was related to her children, and the father to his, there would have been considered to be only two unrelated children.
There is a reason for the limits, and they do not affect related persons, so the snarky tone about immigrant families is really just trying to smear something.
Of course the city I lived in was small in population, not in mind, which sounds like it is the difference.
-
Focus on the density, not the family status
If there are 27 related people living in the same house, and the house is a single-family unit with three bedrooms, there are going to be problems. Insanely high densities are, I think, something it is reasonable to legislate against. However, three unrelated people in a single-family home is not even close to that level.
I do not approve of laws that dictate that only family may live together. Frankly, not only is it discriminatory to homosexuals and unmarried couples, but it implies that *friendship* is an unimportant human connection. I wouldn't live in a place where I couldn't let a friend stay with me indefinitely to help me out with the rent.
The most effective way to handle this is probably to enforce fire code laws (which have to be absurdly high -- it is not a fire risk to have eight adults living in a single-family home, but having twenty might be a different story), and to enforce existing laws against disorderly behavior, poor house grooming (never mowing your lawn... if I can get a 60 dollar ticket for not mowing my lawn because my mower was stolen, in a big city, how come a town can't enforce mow-your-lawn laws?), trash in the yard, etc. It's not the number of people in the house, it's the impact they have on the neighbors. Eight quiet, responsible adults leading peaceful lives in a single-family dwelling are better neighbors than one married couple that are constantly having loud drunken parties and equally loud, violent fights with each other, on the lawn, at 3 am. Enforce the number of cars you're allowed to park on the street and you can even control parking space issues that would otherwise come up with eight people in a house. But most of this should be handled by existing laws penalizing the actual behavior that is a problem, not what's seen as the source cause of the behavior. And trying to prevent two unmarried adults and their three respective children from living in a four-bedroom house is insane. This country's laws already offer too damn little support for close friendships.
-
Of Two Minds on Occupancy Definitions
I live in a town where the rule is No More Than Two Unrelated. So, two moms, two dads, an unmarried couple with children and whatnot are fine. Three fraternity members or ten immigrants who are NOT related are not.
I worry a lot about non-traditional families being affected by the law, which in this town is enforced mostly as a backup to other quality of life laws. But at the same time I support the law in many cases because in a town like this, where the in-town housing has the potential to be both affordable and logical from a transportation standpoint, but IS NOT AFFORDABLE because when more than a very small number of unrelated individuals start living together, rents and housing prices skyrocket because unrelated, working adults can pay infinitely more than can a nuclear (or otherwise) family supporting one or more non-working members. The effect on the market is ugly, at least for poorer families.