Would this also affect snake handlers, since they generally get around the laws by holding meetings at their homes?
I’m not familiar with this proposal really, but I’d say local ordinance is an appropriate venue for restrictions like this as they can be tailored more specifically. There are limits to what is reasonable in a residential neighborhood.
I’m familiar with a neighborhood where almost none of the homes have off-street parking, so everyone parks on the street. One person in this neighborhood happens to own an empty lot next to his house, which he converted into an outdoor breakaway church when the church he attended ran into some drama and split in half. So once a week he’d go stake out a huge tent pavilion and they’d conduct a full church service under the pavilion, for probably 100 people.
Well, where do those people park? Maybe 4-5 could park in his second lot, but the rest basically would take any free spots, block driveways, park in other people’s yards and et cetera. Now all of those are individually ordinance violations and ticketable/towable offenses, but when it’s that many cars it kind of paralyzes the neighborhood and it’d seem the best way to go at something like that is putting a restriction on being able to hold events like that if you can’t provide appropriate parking facilities. There are certainly ordinary brick-and-mortar churches found in residential neighborhoods, and they almost always have decently sized parking lots.
I don’t really see the problem with this. It seems to be a very straightforward zoning ordinance, and much like stopping the guy in Phoenix from running a church which basically was one big fire hazard in his backyard wasn’t obstructing his freedom of religion, this can hardly be said to obstruct freedom of assembly. I think this is something which should be handled on the community level, but it’s almost certainly constitutional, and more importantly, I think going against it is just rather silly. If you want to host more than 49 people at your house more than a few times a month, then what you’re doing is probably something zoning ordinances would want to have a look at anyways.
There were rumors of a club for swingers being run out of people’s homes a couple of years back but I don’t think those involved dozens of couples.
I don’t know why but if you look at churches being run out of people’s basements, they are largely not english speaking congregations and largely immigrant.
I would like to know what prompted this law, who’s supporting it and who’s against it, before I make any judgements. It seems like there’s something we’re all missing, laws like this don’t just pop up
[QUOTE=Little Nemo;17352162
The government might be able to regulate issues […]
. But it arguably cannot set an arbitrary limit on how many people can assemble inside a private residence.
[/QUOTE]
It can set an arbitrary [public safety] limit on how many people can assemble inside any other kind of building. And in a building not designed to handle crowds, people are likely to die. Granted, residential buildings have much tougher access requirements relative to the number of expected users, but I think that if you want to have 49 people in your house, you should get a use-permit for it.
Viewed in that light, I see this as a statement that if you have less than 49, or less often than every second week, they are willing to make an exception for private residences.
I have a hard time accepting this law as a safety regulation. If it’s unsafe to have fifty people inside a building, why allow it three times in any 40-day period? If it’s safe on those three days, why is it unsafe on the other thirty-seven days in that period?
Reviving the thread due to this case.
36 taken to hospitals after Texas floor collapses.
Love the last line in the article.