It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Town Won't Let Unmarried Parents Live Together.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:55 PM
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.

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.

I cannot beleive that I read this... I've read and heard of a bunch of ridiculous "old" laws, but this one takes the cake.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by elevatedone
The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

Okay, but if the children are all theirs then wouldn't they be related by blood?

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:06 PM
If Im not mistaken, this is a violation of federal fair housing laws. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religon, creed, ethnic background,handicap or familial status.

I used to be in the arpartment maintainence business, and we were required to study the fair housing laws. You can add, but not take away, from fair housing standards.

There could be lawsuits over this. I hope.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:47 PM
These laws are intended to keep the houses with 20 Mexicans (or other Illeagles)from living there.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:50 PM
Skadi, it looks like the Fair Housing Act is aimed at property owners; so it doesn't apply.

This is a city government policy, and not an owner discriminating. In the past, "homeowner associations" have been given tons of leeway in this area, under the argument that they were similar to city councils. I'm sure the city atty would just reverse the argument. A lot would depend on state law, as to what is acceptable for a city to zone.

I would expect they'd lose HUD eligability and other fed funds. But if they are a small bedroom community, such funds might be irrelevant. Most Fed funds go to major cities and not to small town, from what I can get.

In truth, this is probably a way for the town to discriminate (racially) without admitting it.

Suburbs in TX have done the same thing by outlawing rentals that are more than single family units. Since most minorites and poor people can only afford an apartment.

Sometimes the motives aren't even actively racial; sometimes big bland "politically correct" corporations will support these policies, since apartments depress neighborhood property valuations.

City tax assessors don't like apartments either; they generate paltry revenues, and lower the assessed value on whole neighborhoods. A 'burb produces more money by demanding single family dwellings.

In my experience, zoning boards are almost all white, elderly property owners who are "against change." Although the article makes it sounds like the zoning cmte is actually more progressive than the city council. Either way, it still comes out "against change."

Anyway, just some speculation about their actual motives.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:59 PM
From what I've read, the problem appears to be that one of the children has a different biological father. Perhaps it would make the city happy if they just threw one of their children out on the street?

This bylaw would also affect people who take care of foster children, and as far as I'm concerned, we need all the foster parents we can get.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:24 PM
Anyone else see the hand of Christian Fundamentals at work here?
Never mind the welfare of the kids; our Biblical interpretation must be adhered to at all cost. Living in SIN will not be tolerated even if the kids suffer. sheesh.

Don't you just love it when the government, local, county, state or federal can determine what constitutes a family.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:34 PM
Actually laws like this were originally intended to prevent prostitution. It is funny how many cities still have them on the books. A couple of years ago I played in a dart tournament at a hotel a few miles from my home. There is alot of beer consumed at these things and I had consumed more than my share. The cops were watching this hotel fairly close hoping for DUI busts. I decided to get a room and stay the night. When I tried to register I was asked for my driver's license. When I gave it to the clerk I was told that since I lived within 10 miles I couldn't get a room because of a law to prevent people fom "shacking up" at the hotel. A friend of mine who lived further than 10 miles finally got a double and we split it. A few years later a man sued the hotel because he tried to get a room for the same reason as mine and was turned down. He tried to drive home and was stopped for DUI.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by factfinder38
These laws are intended to keep the houses with 20 Mexicans (or other Illeagles)from living there.

er, no, these laws are made to prevent people from living in perversion and sin, or at least what the lawmakers felt was perverted. "Unmarried men and women living together, BURN THE BROTHEL!"

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Skadi, it looks like the Fair Housing Act is aimed at property owners; so it doesn't apply.

Actually, that's not true. It does apply because Federal Law trumps local or State laws, so a lawsuit would hold up in court against the property owners.

The owners would be required, due to "familial status", to not discriminate against them unless they exceeded safety limitations (which are uniform and do not dictate which type of people they are, only the amount).

This is a clear case of going against Federal Law and will expect it to be overturned in short order.

This is the most idiotic thing I've read in a while.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:45 PM
Ok folks....
I am starting a town called strawville...
I will only allow non related naked females to live there... (2 per house only)

now watch the ACLU eat my lunch...

Not only is this a misguided attempt by the town council to thwart mexican housing, but it is a very blantant christian agenda...

The ACLU needs to rip their charter, they are way out of bounds, and quite possibly power mongers.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:36 AM
I wouldn't want to raise my child in a town like that.
I hope those folks are able to move out of town and
raise their children elsewhere. Let those townies
stew in their own feeble juices.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:23 AM
We have a town right by me alchohol isn't sold there,on Saturdays fat food and rest can't serve meat,and they get their mail delivered on Sunday,so doesn't suprise me although Loma Linda has an excellent hospital

new topics

top topics


log in