Posted on 05/17/2006 9:11:44 AM PDT by bigLusr
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I overlooked the ice cream maker. I guess it depends on when you were married, what kind of loot you get. A friend of mine looked over my huge amount of stuff and wailed, "WHY did I get married when I was still a hippie?" :)
"denied an occupancy permit..."
What business is it of any government lackey how many people live in a home. As long as the residents are not disturbing their neighbors, then who even cares. Sounds to me like this couple tried to follow the law, when they should have ignored it.
This of course is more proof that the "righteous right" is as dangerous as the "looney left." Both groups want to use the force of government to enforce their preferred morals.
Of course, this couple tried to do more than many do, yet we get to see how the government mandated a lesser quality of life for the children, to the applause of the righteous.
I understand the mother and father are not related by blood. Not many mother's and father's are. But, how can they deny their own ordinance. The parents are related to the children and visa versa by blood. Period. Who are the children supposed to live with if not their blood parents?
OK... this is a freaking weird one.. I'm going to play devil's advocate a wee bit. The article says:
The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."
Technically they don't fit that description. (I know someone is going to jump on me for this next one) If the landlord allows them, then why should he not allow 15 hispanics to move next door? And don't give me BS that they should check the papers.. it was never done before and won't be happening anytimesoon.
Don't get me wrong, kudos to them.. to stay together that long thru thick and thin, I applaud them. As far as living together.. I could give a whoopdedoo.. this time tho it seems a piece of paper has a little bite...
I have to agree with them on this case. The government has absolutely no right to tell you who is allowed to live on private property unless it becomes a public health problem (i.e. 50 people living in one house).
"What business is it of any government lackey how many people live in a home."
Well, if it keeps thirty illegal immigrant laborers from sharing a house in your neighborhood, you'd appreciate it.
If it is the former, the City Councilmen are acting foolishly. Passing laws prohibiting cohabitation means admitting your culture failed and now you have to use force.
I don't care how many people live in a house in my neighborhood. So long as they aren't disturbing the peace or causing damage to my property, I simply don't care.
Federal law can trump this, all they have to do is state that they are living there as a FAMILY.. doesn't matter what their blood relationship is, could be NONE... Federal Housing law prohibits the local government from doing anything the way its written.
If the people living their claim to be residing together as a family, even if they have no blood relation at all, they are protected under Federal Housing Codes... this town is about to get a HUGE JUDGEMENT AGAINST IT if it tries to enforce this.
This is a case of the law missing the mark. The correction is to change three people to three adults. As the law currently stands, three adults can live together in whatever sexually arrangement they desire, so the law was obviously not designed to control the morals of the occupants. Rather it poorly attempts to prevent multiple families from living in single family dwellings. Now I wonder who they could be targeting with such laws?
An occupancy permit is issued by the building dept. It applies to any structure intended, or used for human habitation. Could be a home, wharehouse, office, apt, ect... It means they found that the structure meets code requirments.
It seems like a silly thing to try and enforce. Don't they have anything better to worry about in that town?
No, I would say they've just scored themselves an indentured servant.
hmm.. I don't know if I agree with your statement. In a way this is actually cool from my viewpoint. The strongest government should be at the local level. If we are to have any form of government whatsoever. Really, that is what most affects us and we have the most control over. In this case it was the city council. (Please don't flame me, I'm not saying wheter the decision was right or wrong).
This idiocy won't stand a court challenge.
Hopefully, for the sake of the city's taxpayers, the city has insurance to cover legal expenses. Because someone is going to sue & easily win.
HA HA HA HA HA that's priceless...
Although, it might make your friend feel better to know that most of the...equipment we got has remained unused, and is just taking up space.
A couple shacking up and having babies out of wedlock, and refusing to marry, aren't practicing Christianity in any way, shape or form. They way they are living seems to be violating Jesus Christ's most emphatic teachings and commandments on marrige, adultery and fornication.
I think the Town is absolutely right in asking them to get married to legitimize their family and bring a respectable example into the community. If more Towns had this courage then we'd see a lot less of this sort of degredation of the family, (and the female body), in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.