I pit five members of the Black Jack, Missouri city council

[kaylasdad99]

Sounds weird. Are they allowed to have a guest stay in the house for a duration of their own choosing, or does the council get to tell homeowners how long they can allow a guest to remain under their roof?

'Cos, if they can have a guest for as long as they want, they can just have the oldest boy maintain an address elsewhere on paper, and sleep in his own room at night. As a guest.

Bunch of fucksticks on the city council, I must say.

[Snakes_on_a_Plane]

Black jack sounds like Pyongyang. You have to register for an occupancy permit, and they actually have the right to tell you that only a certain maount of people can live in your house, or that you cannot share a house with a lover or friends.

[foolsguinea]

I am SO moving to St Louis County to start my porno film studio. Which will specialize in films of large, epic orgies.

[Polycarp]

U know this thread lacks two weeks of being eight years old, but to correct a minor point: Typically when a building is newly constructed or converted to a truly new use (warehouse-becomes-condos, as opposed to bookstore-becomes-clothing-store), the local zoning law calls for a builsing permit, with review of the site plan to ensure it meets the zoning law;s requirements for setbacks, etc., before construction begins, than an inspection and certificate of occupancy when construction is completed, assuring that the finished product still complies. Requiring an pccipancy permit of a new tenant seems to me to be ultra vires though I could be wrong.

[Lord_Feldon]

If anybody’s looking for a resolution, it seems that the ACLU got involved and the rules were changed quickly thereafter.

[Frank]

@Polycarp

Requiring an pccipancy permit of a new tenant seems to me to be ultra vires though I could be wrong.

This is for unincorporated St. Louis County:

Re-occupancy permitting is a minimum standard of safety and health inspection conducted on all properties in unincorporated St. Louis County at the time of change of occupants. This inspection must be applied for at every change of occupancy. This ordinance was put into effect in October 2005 for rental units and July 2007 for sale homes.

Most municipalities in the county have similar rules.

[Jackmannii]

@h.sapiens

I just wanted to say that Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving are two of the most interesting, loveliest names that I have come across in a while.

Like, megadittoes.

And where else would they live but Black Jack, Missouri? Excepting of course Zombietown, USA.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Lord_Feldon

If anybody’s looking for a resolution, it seems that the ACLU got involved and the rules were changed quickly thereafter.

Your link says the lawsuit is still pending. It does not say anything about the rules being changed (quickly or ever)

[Jas09]

It was changed quickly:

On August 15, 2006, less than a week after the lawsuit was filed, the Black Jack City Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to reverse its policy and amend the definition of “family” to include unrelated people and the children of both or either person who live together as a single housekeeping unit. The amendment would make the family eligible for an occupancy permit.

From here: Dot Connections: City of Black Jack, Missouri Forced to Renounce Ordinance Prohibiting Unmarried Couple and Children From Living in City

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The ordinance falls somewhere between Belle Terre and Moore v. East Cleveland, SCOTUS’ two big decisions balancing zoning power and the right of families to reside together. It’s much closer to the latter, in which an ordinance allowing only “nuclear families” to share a residence was invalidated, and thus probably unconstitutional. Still, it’s not a foregone conclusion.

The city has an interesting history in terms of housing discrimination:

[The city adopted] a zoning ordinance which prohibited the construction of any new multiple-family dwellings.

<snip>

We hold that Zoning Ordinance No. 12 of the City of Black Jack violates Title VIII, because it denies persons housing on the basis of race, in violation of 3604(a), and interferes with the exercise of the right to equal housing opportunity, in violation of 3617. The remedy for this violation of the Fair Housing Act is provided in 3615:* * * any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid.We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to the District Court to enter a permanent injunction upon receipt of this Court’s order, enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance.8 The mandate of this Court shall be issued forthwith.

United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri, 508 F.2d 1179, 1188 (8th Cir. 1974)

ETA: the Shelltrack lawsuit was settled for $28,000.

[aruvqan]

@OneCentStamp

Great link.

Terrible pitting.

Try to put some oopmh into it:

“Once again the ignorant rubes of the fucking Bible Belt seek to impose their hateful, anachronistic beliefs on anyone who doesn’t meet their narrow definition of ‘family.’ Come out of the bomb shelter and grow out that crew cut. It’s the 21st Century. It’s stories like this that remind me why Jack Chick sells so many goddamn tracts.”

Huzzah, I like this rephrasing!

And WTF would they do if there were a number of kids per bedroom regulation [IIRC it is something like 1 kid per bedroom for adoptions in many adoption agencies] and one pair of the kids were siamese twins? :dubious: