Black Jack, Missouri does not allow families with children to live together if parents are not married

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/unmarried.ap/index.html

[jelti 0]

Wow.

[Fuzzness 2]

they can do that?

[terri o'neale 0]

they can do that?

Of course they can...my government isn't letting my family live together either. I have to beg them nicely for my sick daughter to have her father...and I can't return to work because of her health. And we are married.

[iceyspots 0]

lol... looks like they're not moving as fast as modernity

[arwensun1965 0]

Sorry if I am a bit slow in the head so to speak, but I do not quite understand what the achievement of this is, they wish to keep apart families of people who are not married and so leave these children with only one parent? Is this correct?? In todays society do they not understand that couples do this and still have family values. Just because there is not a bit of paper to say they are married does not mean these children have not got a loving mother and father. They now wish to destroy the family by telling them that they either get married or get evicted. A basic human right is being thrown out of the window, the right to choose for yourself what you personally want for yourself in life.

Janice

[almaty 19]

drawing allot of heat on that around here..the lady is white and her male companion is african-american

[JAYKE 0]

Believe it or not, this law is on the books in a LOT of towns. The town where I went to school (not in the deep south) wouldn't allow for fraternity or sorority houses to exist, as there was a similar law about unrelated people sharing a private home. The reason it was devised and existed in the past to try to deter the existence of houses of prostitution. However, its a completely outdated law, and this example is a huge abuse of it.

[almaty 19]

i think the issue is that it is raise now...with a couple with children moved there...allot of people see it as a covert racist attempt by the city to chase the family out..a 2006 version of the house burning popular years ago

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

so, if the adults involved are cousins, then it is ok?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Fandango 1,439]

No, they can't do that. It's against Fair Housing Laws.

Fair Housing Act

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act

more here

They cannot discriminate based on familial status. It's against the law.....

Also, this has nothing to do with K3/cr1 applicants...it's chalk and cheese, basically....

[JAYKE 0]

No, they can't do that. It's against Fair Housing Laws.

Fair Housing Act

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act

more here

They cannot discriminate based on familial status. It's against the law.....

Also, this has nothing to do with K3/cr1 applicants...it's chalk and cheese, basically....

It's not against the law to sell or to rent to them. Just for them to Co-habitate. Unfortunately, fair housing law is irrelevant, as its not the transaction that is illegal. It's the residents, not the renters that are the violators. If they were living in their van, it still would be against the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050901091.html

However, I couldn't agree with you more on the "Chalk and cheese" portion of your statement!!!

[Fandango 1,439]

No, they can't do that. It's against Fair Housing Laws.

Fair Housing Act

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability). More on the Fair Housing Act

more here

They cannot discriminate based on familial status. It's against the law.....

Also, this has nothing to do with K3/cr1 applicants...it's chalk and cheese, basically....

It's not against the law to sell or to rent to them. Just for them to Co-habitate. Unfortunately, fair housing law is irrelevant, as its not the transaction that is illegal. It's the residents, not the renters that are the violators. If they were living in their van, it still would be against the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050901091.html

However, I couldn't agree with you more on the "Chalk and cheese" portion of your statement!!!

Right, but the law is outdated and contradicts the essense of Fair Housing Laws. It's a ridiculous notion for the gov't to uphold both these laws at the same time. suggest that you can rent/sell to an unwed family of 5, but it's not legal to live there. And I feel that the fair housing laws should trump an outdated law.

[noemij 0]

Ah Missouri......a state I will never live in

[almaty 19]

Ah Missouri......a state I will never live in

the mississippi of the north...a pro slavery state..prior to the civil war...state of john ashcroft..enuff said