I just saw this article on CNN.com. It basically says a town in Missouri made it illegal for non-married couples with children to live together and those found doing so face eviction. I can’t believe this could be legal anywhere in the US and I’m simply appalled. Not only does this affect ‘traditional’ families where the parents decide not to marry, it also seems to me to be an underhanded method of keeping homosexual couples from having any children.
Does anyone live in Missouri or maybe just know if there’s more to this story than I’ve seen? I just can’t believe it. :smack:
You have the gist of it. The city of Black Jack will not issue an occupancy permit to house more than three people, unless the group is related by “blood, marriage or adoption.” In this case, the man and woman are not married. I believe, but I’m not sure, that they are the biological parents of the children.
There’s probably a sound (or at least defensible) reason behind this (the city was actually incorporated about 35 years ago specifically to keep public housing projects out of the area) but it hasn’t helped that some officials have refered to the couple as “living in sin” even though they’ve been together for something like 15 years.
It does seem strange but I think you have the decision backwards. The rule was already in place. They just decided not to change it.
These types of rules are very common. I bet most college towns in the country have something very similar. They don’t want 15 kids to rent one small house and become trouble. It also would apply to flop houses or houses used by business to store all their illegal workers. It is common.
What is very odd about this rule is that it does not recognize that some of the people are related by blood. When I have seen these before, the kids and mom are related so there are only two unrelated people (mom and dad). At that point it is less than three unrelated people. They would be safe. Somehow this town has a really wierd rule.
It’s not unconstitutional depending on how exactly ordinance is structured. As stated above the jist of these laws is to prevent subdividing and lowering the “neighborhood” standing.
As I gay person I find it odd that few people seem to realize in most places it is completely legal to discriminate against gay people.
Remember you can discriminate against anyone UNLESS it is SPECIFICALLY state by law you can’t. For instance, race. And even then it’s easy enough to work around that.
It’s an open question, but there’s a strong argument for unconstitutionality under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. There is a constitutional right to live together as a family, under the case of Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, which held in concurrence: " ‘If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on ‘the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.’’’ Smith, 431 U.S. 816, 862 -63 (1977) (Justice Stewart concurring). Justice Stweart’s concurrence was cited with approval in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1977), so it carries more than just persuasive force.
The most directly on point case is probably that of Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). That case held involved a grandmother who lived with her two grandchildren, who were cousins to each other. A city ordinance barred anything but nuclear families living together. A plurality decision found that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
The recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) has probably strengthened the argument that this ordinance would be unconstitutional. I would lean towards saying the ordinance is likely unconstutional.
I agree with Pravnik. Skipping some of the fine points, and deliberately avoiding terms of art, I believe the city would have to show some important public interest that required this ordinance, and that this public interest that couldn’t be addressed by a narrower, less intrusive ordinance.
Oddly enough, the history of these kinds of ordinances is often traceable to a desire to prevent whorehouses. Three unrelated women living at 117 N. Vine? Close 'em down! (No need to prove acts of prostitution = easier enforcement by the city.)
Ridiculous, yes, but not without precedence. 25 years ago Wisconsin had a law against “Cohabitation” which was two persons of opposite sex, unrelated, (if you were related it was ok), living in a situation that, and this is the important part, “Gives the appearance of a sexual relationship”. I guess I should not have used quotes there, I do not remember the exact words. But it did not require proof, merely the appearance of. Ms Seenidog and I got divorced, but I continued to live there for a few months because she saw it would be good for both of us. A unnamed person (I really do not know who or why) saw other wise and reported us to the authorities. After a good laugh, the DA ignored the reporter. The reporter then turned to human services, and reported that Ms. Seenidog was living with a man not her husband, and that her son should be taken away. The not husband man was me, the father of the child, and I was providing child care while finishing school to get a good job to care of guess who? The child. I understood it. Ms Seenidog understood it. And thank god for us the social worker understood it. But it could have been a disaster.
I suppose the law – unconstitutional or not – makes selective enforcement easy in order to eliminate truly anti-social behaviour, such as some of those mentioned above. Will the city prosecutor really try to enforce the law against a litigious gay couple that has nothing to lose in taking it to court? Or will the prosecutor only enforce the law against that new Mormon* who just moved to town with his six wives?
*Yes, I know LDS doesn’t permit this; I mean certain non-LDS Mormons.
An “occupancy permit” is basically a legal certificate that the place is fit for occupancy to so many people. It’s used to keep people from renting uninhabitable places to too many people. In New Jersey they are issued by the City’s Fire Prevention Department.
I work in rental property management, and in New Jersey that would be so illegal (unless it was a two-family and the landlord occupied the other unit).
I used to live nearby. An Occupancy Permit is required in some areas, by local ordinance. This is designed to prevent overcrowding and substandard dwellings. You wouldn’t want to have a family with five kids living in a two bedroom house with one bathroom would you?
The couple apparenty owns the house.
They can be required whenever a property changes hands. St. Louis County, where Black Jack is located, required occupancy permits back in the 70’s. I’ve been told that’s no longer a requirement. I sold my home there two years ago and as I was the seller, not the buyer, I didn’t care. A municipality located in the county can set their own requirements.
I still don’t understand how the occupancy permit relates to who the specific people are who live there then. You get an occupancy permit for the house, it says “5 people may live in this building” - how does that include having to say who they are, and how they are related?
Also … what specifically would be “so illegal” in New Jersey? Unmarried families living together? I’m confused.
And just to pile more questions on to this. Isuppose in the city of Black Jack it must also be illegal to…
[ul]
[li]foster a child, if you already have one of your own[/li][li]hire a live-in nanny for a large family[/li][li]hire a live-in carer for a disabled person with a family[/li][li]have an exchange student in your house[/li][/ul]
I live in a college town, and it has exactly the same rule. In theory, not more than three unrelated people can live in any one dwelling. In practice, this law is only enforced upon students at the time of renting–landlords let a maximum of three people sign a lease. I have never, ever heard of families being subjected to the rule; for example, I know a woman and her two children living with her boyfriend and his three children and grandchild. Absolutely no one cares. The only time someone begins to care is when it is students making a huge ruckus (and practically, the eviction process is longer than the rest of the lease, so it doesn’t happen).
The fact that this got into the news means that something is up, though. We just have to wait to see if the “something” is more important to landlords than having their properties filled.
The adult woman is related to all of the children by blood. The adult man is related to two of the children by blood. The man and woman are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption, and the man and the oldest child are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.
