Unmarried couple with kids? You're Evicted!

[AngeloMichael]

Town won't let unmarried parents live together

Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)

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.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

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.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

link

I'd say "unbelievable" but that word just doesn't seem to be in my vocabulary anymore.

We all know who they are really going after with this law.

 

[Recidiva]

This is a true "what the fuck?" moment.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh. Some people just can't mind their own business.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Remind me not to move to Missouri. Ever.

Jeez!

 

[Recidiva]

This part just kills me:

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.

First...that incest means you're okay. You can move in with your unmarried cousin.

Second...one child doesn't count as parenthood? WHAT THE FUCK?

 

[Liar]

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.

let's see...

Two people in that household are unmarried. The rest are related to them both by blood, (or adoption, article doesn't tell).

Wasn't two people ok? I think they should find a lawyer and nitpick on that.

That said, it's a dumbass policy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The way I see it, if you have a child in common, you are related by blood, even if indirectly. Even if you divorce and are no longer a couple, you are still family if you have a child in common.

But why should even having a kid be necessary? Like Rob said, some just can't mind their own business.

 

[chris 44]

What do they call it ?

Land of the free, home of the brave ?

Something along those lines

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What do they call it ?

Land of the free, home of the brave ?

Something along those lines

Well, these days, in that state, no offense to its more open-minded citizens, but they need to "Show Me" the freedom.

 

[Aurora Black]

First...that incest means you're okay. You can move in with your unmarried cousin.

Second...one child doesn't count as parenthood? WHAT THE FUCK?

Yeehaw.

 

[zeb1094]

Just goes to show you that there are idiots all across out great country, unfortunately it looks as though they have all wound up in BLACK JACK, Missouri.

So, me and my sister (we're from Tennessee by the way) can move in together with our 6 kids even though we're not married.

But me and my girlfriend with out 4 kids can't live together unless I marry or adopt her!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Just goes to show you that there are idiots all across out great country, unfortunately it looks as though they have all wound up in BLACK JACK, Missouri.

So, me and my sister (we're from Tennessee by the way) can move in together with our 6 kids even though we're not married.

But me and my girlfriend with out 4 kids can't live together unless I marry or adopt her!

They're not idiots, and it should be well concerned and understood that saying as much is aggressive ignorance at its finest.

This is one of dozens of excellent examples of what happens when the tectonic plates that are generational values and identities collide. We get ripples in the lives of real people and they wave high through the media.

They're not evil, they're not stupid, they're not malicious, they're not un-educated or culturally under-developed. They simply have a different paradigm of values than others--and as much as I'm sympathetic to the couple trying to create a family-like household, I won't cheapen their situation by lamely calling the authorities "poopy heads" or "morons" or other totally oblivious and simply self-eggrandizing terms.

It does absolutely no good, has no true utility to getting through these sorts of generational (or cultural) value faults by pointing fingers at the side you don't agree with and snubbing their intellect, nature, or the quality of their character. There are better ways to go about change, and the story presented is one that ought draw concern and activism--not taunts.

 

[cantdog]

Joe's correct, as usual. The new ordinance, the one that was defeated and would have allowed the occupancies, didn't just stop the old one's action. It went further, and redefined the word "family." For that reason, the article says, the new ordinance was rejected.

It may be seen as heartening that a redefinition of the word was okay with such a large minority. Five to three is pretty good.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe's correct, as usual. The new ordinance, the one that was defeated and would have allowed the occupancies, didn't just stop the old one's action. It went further, and redefined the word "family." For that reason, the article says, the new ordinance was rejected.

It may be seen as heartening that a redefinition of the word was okay with such a large minority. Five to three is pretty good.

I think it goes to show that progress is both possible and ready for dialogue, at least.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They're not idiots, and it should be well concerned and understood that saying as much is aggressive ignorance at its finest.

This is one of dozens of excellent examples of what happens when the tectonic plates that are generational values and identities collide. We get ripples in the lives of real people and they wave high through the media.

They're not evil, they're not stupid, they're not malicious, they're not un-educated or culturally under-developed. They simply have a different paradigm of values than others--and as much as I'm sympathetic to the couple trying to create a family-like household, I won't cheapen their situation by lamely calling the authorities "poopy heads" or "morons" or other totally oblivious and simply self-eggrandizing terms.

It does absolutely no good, has no true utility to getting through these sorts of generational (or cultural) value faults by pointing fingers at the side you don't agree with and snubbing their intellect, nature, or the quality of their character. There are better ways to go about change, and the story presented is one that ought draw concern and activism--not taunts.

I get your point. I respect their right to hold such views, though I do not share them. However, I do not respect their attempts to impose their personal ethics by law. Best to keep such restrictive ethics out of the coercive institutions of the State.

 

[zeb1094]

They're not idiots, and it should be well concerned and understood that saying as much is aggressive ignorance at its finest.

This is one of dozens of excellent examples of what happens when the tectonic plates that are generational values and identities collide. We get ripples in the lives of real people and they wave high through the media.

They're not evil, they're not stupid, they're not malicious, they're not un-educated or culturally under-developed. They simply have a different paradigm of values than others--and as much as I'm sympathetic to the couple trying to create a family-like household, I won't cheapen their situation by lamely calling the authorities "poopy heads" or "morons" or other totally oblivious and simply self-eggrandizing terms.

It does absolutely no good, has no true utility to getting through these sorts of generational (or cultural) value faults by pointing fingers at the side you don't agree with and snubbing their intellect, nature, or the quality of their character. There are better ways to go about change, and the story presented is one that ought draw concern and activism--not taunts.

So you have family living in Black Jack?

 

[minsue]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Second...one child doesn't count as parenthood? WHAT THE FUCK?

Read more closely, R. One child living with unmarried parents doesn't count as more than 3 people living together.

As for the law, it's disgusting.

 

[zeb1094]

I get your point. I respect their right to hold such views, though I do not share them. However, I do not respect their attempts to impose their personal ethics by law. Best to keep such restrictive ethics out of the coercive institutions of the State.

The legislation of morals has always been wrong yet those in power always try to make things they feel are bad for the majority illegal whether they are good or evil in the majorities view.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I get your point. I respect their right to hold such views, though I do not share them. However, I do not respect their attempts to impose their personal ethics by law. Best to keep such restrictive ethics out of the coercive institutions of the State.

Let us not kid ourselves in righteousness, everyone. All actions of making (or overturning) law are attempts to impose personal ethics with them--how reasoned or objective or intentioned those ethics are are debateable circumstantially, but we ought not convince ourselves that imposition from people isn't essentially personal and at least so in part.

 

[Recidiva]

Let us not kid ourselves in righteousness, everyone. All actions of making (or overturning) law are attempts to impose personal ethics with them--how reasoned or objective or intentioned those ethics are are debateable circumstantially, but we ought not convince ourselves that imposition from people isn't essentially personal and at least so in part.

So we shouldn't take it personally, and neither should you, that when a law has an effect on someone, like making it impossible to live near your family, that has a personal effect? And you then, have the right to take it personally? And that if you can consider this law to be inhumane, unjust and targeted to persecute, you as a compassionate person, might take that personally too?

 

[OhMissScarlett]

First of all, let me clarify that I've known people involved in city administration in Blackjack personally and they're not idiots at all. I'm not going to defend this law, because I do think it's ridiculous and hurting families in the area, but, to understand this law, you must understand the area.

I don't think the law has anything to do with the local government trying to impose their own morality on the citizens. Blackjack is an area surrounded by high crime, gang violence and drugs. I seriously think the law was made to apply more to keeping out drug houses, not common law couples. I'm not saying it's right, it obviously needs to change, but at least look at it from a perspective other than that the city of Blackjack is trying to dictate morality.

There are several parts of St. Louis with similar ordinances from long ago, even some which prohibit multiple single women from living together to prevent brothels. Is it right for the times we live in now? No, but at the time it served a purpose.

 

[Huckleman2000]

First of all, let me clarify that I've known people involved in city administration in Blackjack personally and they're not idiots at all. I'm not going to defend this law, because I do think it's ridiculous and hurting families in the area, but, to understand this law, you must understand the area.

I don't think the law has anything to do with the local government trying to impose their own morality on the citizens. Blackjack is an area surrounded by high crime, gang violence and drugs. I seriously think the law was made to apply more to keeping out drug houses, not common law couples. I'm not saying it's right, it obviously needs to change, but at least look at it from a perspective other than that the city of Blackjack is trying to dictate morality.

There are several parts of St. Louis with similar ordinances from long ago, even some which prohibit multiple single women from living together to prevent brothels. Is it right for the times we live in now? No, but at the time it served a purpose.

You and Joe speak some sense, but it still strikes me as a nonsensical law to try to enforce in this instance. Surely, other communities deal with drug houses and bordellos in more successful ways.

It does remind me, though, of a similar sort of dispute over an Asian religious group in the Eastside suburbs of Seattle that erected some kind of massive temple/monastary/multi-family residence on a tear-down lot they bought. I don't know how it turned out, but it was one of those 'immigrant culture vs. zoning restrictions' fights.

In my own neighborhood, which has substantial Latino and Asian immigrant population, there is a house that has transformed their whole front yard into a parking lot to accomodate at least half a dozen vehicles at any time. On weekends or even some weekday evenings, the entire block is full of parked cars on either side of the street. I don't know if there's loud gatherings or other things there, but if I was a next-door neighbor to that sort of crowd scene, I'd be really pissed off!

 

[matriarch]

The first thing that came to my mind was student accommodation. Both my sons lived in properties that housed 5, single, unrelated people - with the blessing of the local authorities. It was the only way they (well actually the ex and myself ) could afford it.

I appreciate the insult to unmarried couples - that sucks so much that I'm speechless, but it has wider implications also.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

The first thing that came to my mind was student accommodation. Both my sons lived in properties that housed 5, single, unrelated people - with the blessing of the local authorities. It was the only way they (well actually the ex and myself ) could afford it.

I appreciate the insult to unmarried couples - that sucks so much that I'm speechless, but it has wider implications also.

Blackjack isn't exactly a college town or I'm sure the laws would probably be different. Having lived next to an off-campus fraternity house once in a regular residential area, I can't say wouldn't have welcomed such a law back then.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So we shouldn't take it personally, and neither should you, that when a law has an effect on someone, like making it impossible to live near your family, that has a personal effect? And you then, have the right to take it personally? And that if you can consider this law to be inhumane, unjust and targeted to persecute, you as a compassionate person, might take that personally too?

I have no idea what you just asked... but am really interested in answering. Point of clarification, please.