Town won't let unmarried parents live together
Here's another one of these unbelievable stories that make me wonder what country I'm living in. These paternalistic assholes keep trying to control other people's lives to satisfy their own misguided notions of morality. Occupancy permits are not intended to be instruments of moral judgment, but rather to make sure structures are sound and are being used in accordance with their zoning and permitting etc... Hopefully these idiots will get enough bad publicity that they're forced to change this rule.
3 comments:
This is ridiculous. And why is it ok to be unmarried and have one child? Do you have to publicly denounce that child as a mistake in order to stay? Who makes up stupid rules like this?
I understand why the original ordinance was created, but the recent decision and the mayor's comments show that they are now using this ordinance as a tool to impose morality.
I've been looking around, but I don't see the press release, or do you mean the mayor's statement?
The council voted 5-3 against a recommendation made last month by the planning and zoning commission that would have allowed "two unrelated individuals having a child or children related by blood, adoption or foster care relationship to both such individuals" to live in a single-family dwelling together.
Mayor Norman McCourt issued this statement to explain the city's position: "The purpose of these occupancy permit laws generally is to avoid overcrowding by non-related parties, assure the lifelong maintenance of the city's housing stock, prevent new buyers from being obligated to repair residences that were not kept up to code, preserve the character of the neighborhoods and the city, and to protect the general safety and welfare of the city's residents."
The surprise decision followed months of public outcry against the city for denying occupancy permits to unmarried couples who have more than one child. The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." It had been used to prevent unwed people from living together with their children.
The council voted on a recommendation that would have eliminated the moral aspect of the ordinance, but still appears to let them restrict houses from being used inappropriately, but they rejected it. The quote above is from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I haven't found anything that indicates that the mayor or the council are concerned about changing the ordinance. In fact, if the above statements are true, it sounds like they are enforcing it to the letter. It's kind of ironic from my perspective. In NE Florida where we live, the city council regularly trashes the city's state-mandated comprehensive development plan and lets developers build anything anywhere they want with no restrictions.
Post a Comment