Local Governments Imposing "Family" Ordinances
A Missouri resident has been denied an "occupancy permit" by the town of Black Jack, on the grounds that she is not related by "blood, marriage, or adoption" to every member of her household. Olivia Shelltrack and her boyfriend of 13 years, Fondray Loving, have three children together -- a situation that does not fit within Black Jack's definition of family. In defense of the decision, Black Jack Mayor Norman McCourt stated, "This is about the definition of family, not if they're married or not. It's what cities do to maintain the housing and to hold down overcrowding."
It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? In 1977, Justice Powell wrote for a Supreme Court plurality in Moore v. City of East Cleveland that substantive due process protects against "cutting off any protection of family rights at the first convenient, if arbitrary boundary -- the boundary of the nuclear family." Indeed, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis seems to imply that the Black Jack ordinance is a pretext, writing, "Anyone who thought this 'traditional family values' garbage was only focusing on gays, well, get ready because you're next."
Similarly, the city of Manassas in Virginia has recently passed a zoning ordinance that places restrictions the relationships of the household members. Manassas resident Leyla Chavez was notified that she is in violation of the new ordinance, because the members of her household include her nephew, who is considered unrelated for the purposes of the ordinance. Edgar Rivera, an organizer with advocacy group Tenants and Workers United, echoes Aravosis' sentiment and says of the Manassas law, "It is not only unfair; it's racism. It's basically a way to just go after certain communities."
(Hat tip to AMERICAblog.)
Written By:ben On March 3, 2006 01:04 PM Written By:Erasmussimo On March 3, 2006 01:56 PM
We can hope that this silly ordnance will be challenged and thrown out by the courts. A community has a legitimate interest in insuring that housing units are not overcrowded, but the relationships between the residents is not a proper concern of the community. Do they propose to prevent people from taking in boarders?
I can't imagine the timing of this ordinance is a coincidence. Just like the South Dakota law just passed to ban abortions in that state, it seems like the right-wing has interpreted the Alito confirmation as a license to challenge every well standing precedent they can find. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if some state passes a law banning schools from teaching lessons in Arabic.
what type of local courts do they have in Missouri. If they are like Kansas municipal courts the accused will also have little chance for a fair trial. Cities in Kansas have municipal "courts" that are not authorized by the state constitution and have a method of choosing judges that tends to bias them in favor of the government. Essentially the "judge" is an independent contractor who signs a contract with the city governing body or the city manager to operate the muncipal "court" which the city establishes for the primary purpose of raising money for the city. I have posted an article on this practice at:
http://www.dwightseffort.com/content/view/161/
Texas has similar courts, but I'm not sure about Missouri
Were you aware that the Manassas ordinance was suspended largely due to the threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU of Virginia? See below:
American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, News Release
January 5, 2006
Manassas Suspends Ordinance That Limits Right of Family Members to Live Together
Yesterday, within hours of the ACLU of Virginia announcing plans to mount a legal challenge, officials for the City of Manassas suspended enforcement of the new ordinance that prevents aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, great-grandparents, or great-grandchildren from living together as family unit.
Manassas city officials had stated earlier that the purpose of the ordinance was to cut back on illegal immigrants, but the ACLU of Virginia responded that it was an unconstitutional government infringement on the right of family members to live together and that it was being used largely, if not solely, against Latino families.
“This was the right and responsible decision for Manassas officials to make,” said ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis, who noted that large number of rights groups were coming together to challenge the ordinance.
“The ordinance was anti-family in that it undermined long-held cultural traditions regarding how families function, and it was anti-Constitution in that it gave the government extraordinary power to interfere with the personal, private decisions made by families about how they will function as a unit.”
Under the Manassas ordinance, a “family” is: “Two or more persons related to the second degree of collateral consanguinity by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship….living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of not more than one additional nonrelated person.”
In short, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, and siblings can live under the same roof, but aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, great-grandparents, or great-grandchildren are not considered “family,” and no more than one of them may live together.
In 1977 in the case of Moore v. City of East Cleveland, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar ordinance. That ordinance permitted only the parents and children of the head of household, and one dependent child of the head of the household and the spouse and dependent children of that dependent child. The Court held that the restrictive definition of “family” violated the substantive due process clause, noting that the protection of family relationships extended beyond the nuclear family. Writing for a plurality of four justices, Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. wrote: “The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.”
“We still have work to do,” added Willis. “The suspension of the ordinance is only temporary, and it is not clear what step Manassas officials will be taking next. We will certainly be urging them to repeal it.”
Contacts for ACLU of Virginia:
Kent Willis, Executive Director, or Rebecca K. Glenberg, Legal Director, 804/644-8022
The overcrowding issue is not a racial issue it is a safety issue. Furthermore, our sewers and public utilities were not meant for 15-20 people per household!!!! People are just looking for a loophole so they can continue living like sardines. I have lived in Manassas all my life and I'm glad they have taken a stand against overcrowding. Before long our cities are going to be so overpopulated that we'll have to be like China and limit the number of children we can have. We have the choice, take care of the problem NOW or pay later!
The Manassas statue has been repealed, if memory serves. It wasn't quite as arbitrary as the one in Missouri sounds, because it got a boost from mild traffic problems caused by cars parked in front of high-occupancy houses. Not an excuse, but it does mean that there was some loosely-defined harm taking place.