Here you claim that these usages, or ones significantly like them, are a novelty, and that they are becoming more usual.
That’s hard to believe. Cite?
-FrL-
Even in Standard English some double negatives are perfectly acceptable. It’s not unlike some other languages.
It’s unlike Spanish at least in that in English a double negative (as in your example), is a positive (not unlike = like). In Spanish, a double negative is still a negative (*Salío sin ver a nadie; * literally “He left without seeing nobody,” properly translated as “He left without seeing anybody.”) In English, “I don’t have no money” is perfectly well understood to mean “I don’t have any money,” but is officially incorrect due to imposed “logical” grammatical rules. In Spanish, the same usage, while “logically” incorrect, is perfectly correct grammaticaly. Logic and linguistic meaning are two different things.
Logic, or so-called grammar rules, isn’t always our friend. Consider the following:
“More than one pedestrian was hurt”, where “more than one” equals at least two; and
“None of them are coming”, where “none” equals less than one.
Nice examples, esp. the first one!
-FrL-
Yeah, besides grammatical concord (or number agreement), other factors, such as notional agreement, and indeed proximity (the nearness of “one” to the verb in the first example above) affect how language is used.
Colibri, you missed the point. Double-check my second sentence in post #22. It’s a double negative and is perfectly correct grammatically for SAE.
There isn’t a grocery store in the US that doesn’t have a quick checkout lane without the latter example posted on it. And around where I am in Ohio, the “floor needs mopped” is so common in and around the country that it doesn’t even result in comment from anyone any more. I heard it first from people out in California 25 years ago; my ex-wife used to get driven batty by it from her employees at the restaurant she ran.
I didn’t ask for citations that the usages exist. I asked for citations indicating they are novel usages in any significant sense, and also that their percieved acceptability is becoming more common over time.
-FrL-
No, I got your point. You seem to have missed mine. I noted that you used a double negative in your post. Your double negative, which I agree is perfectly correct grammaticaly, indicates a positive. You said "It’s not unlike some other languages, by which I presume you meant “It is like some other languages.” (If you actually meant something different than that, then I suppose have missed your point.) It’s OK to use a double negative in this way.
What is incorrect in English is not the use of a double negative per se, but the use of a double negative to indicate a negative. When someone says “I don’t have no money” (two negatives) they mean “I don’t have any money” (negative), even though logically it should mean “I have some money” (positive). In this case, formal English grammar accepts the logical meaning (and thus rejects the construction), even though any native speaker would naturally understand the double negative to mean a negative here instead of a positive.
My point was that in this second case the actual linguistic meaning of the double negative to an English speaker as a negative is rejected by English grammarians, based on the logic of the construction. This is in contrast to Spanish, in which the linguistic meaning of a double negative as a negative is accepted by Spanish grammarians, who ignore the logical meaning.
Thanks, Colibri. I mis-stated the mis-statement that I’ve heard so many times over the years: “You can’t use a double negative in English!” As you and I both agree, yes, you can.
I believe you meant “taxpayer’s” or “taxpayers’”. 
Gaudere’s Law in action, as always. 
I think this the point at which someone (such as I) brings up the point that two negatives mean a positive in English, but two positives never mean a negative. And then someone else in the back of the room says, “Yeah, right.”
Or that two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.
Back to Smith and Jones, I venture that if had been written in the reverse order, i.e. “Jones or Smith,” you would likely have chosen “needs.” Ending with an “s” as it does, “Jones” sounds like a plural.