(no subject)

[geekchick]

Yet another reason to be completely ashamed of my neighbors.

If you live in Manassas, and your nephew (for example) happens to live with you, for zoning purposes he is not considered to be related to you; the city has redefined family, "essentially restricting households to immediate relatives, even when the total is below the occupancy limit". If you're white, though, you're probably okay with your three roommates, since enforcement requires someone to complain and surprisingly</sarcasm> the complaints have overwhelmingly been about Latino households.

"We were stymied by families who met the existing definition," [Brian Smith, chief building official] said. And so the city changed the rules to break up more households.

They're not racist though. Really. Ask them, they'll tell you. They just hate illegal immigrants. And people who look like they might be illegal immigrants.

Comments

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Start filing complaints against white folks, especially those connected to the local building officials, and the rules will soon be changed....

So would this work to 'break up' a poly family of, say, 3 unmarried adults? Or an unmarried gay or hetero couple? This sounds pretty intrusive if so...

[geekchick]

So would this work to 'break up' a poly family of, say, 3 unmarried adults? Or an unmarried gay or hetero couple? This sounds pretty intrusive if so...

The unmarried couple should be okay so long as they don't have more than one additional roommate and the poly family could squeak by so long as they don't have children (assuming none of the three are legally married to each other), although this being Virginia I'm sure a determined neighbor could find *something* to complain about. Right now, for zoning purposes Manassas allows:

A. An individual;

B. Two or more persons related to the second degree of collateral consanguinity by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship, or otherwise duly authorized custodial relationship, as verified by official public records such as driver's licenses, birth or marriage certificates, court orders or notarized affidavits, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of not more than one additional unrelated person;

C. A number of persons, not exceeding three, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship; or

D. Not more than two unrelated persons and their dependent children living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Why do this on the basis of cansanguinity rather than just safety? 20 living in a cupboard clearly isn't safe, even if they are all related, while 4 unrelated sharing a mansion is no problem at all.

Actually, on the mansion point, what happens to people who have 'live in staff', unusual though that might be?

[geekchick]

Why do this on the basis of cansanguinity rather than just safety?

Because the real point behind the new legislation is not safety, it's getting rid of illegal immigrants. There's a quote from the city Vice-Mayor in the article that pretty well sums it up: "Parrish said he understands why some people might think the ordinance is racist, but he disagrees. 'In my heart, I believe that is not the issue,' he said. 'The issue is the impact of overcrowding in our community. It looks as though that issue is a direct result of illegal immigration.'"

Actually, on the mansion point, what happens to people who have 'live in staff', unusual though that might be?

That, I don't know. If they're all in a single house, I'd imagine that they'd be subject to the same zoning regulations, although they'd still have to have someone actually complain about it first.

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

The thing that got me was the story in the Post, about 2 women who left VA because of the new law that probably invalidates their legal documents meant to give each power over the other's medical treatment if one of them is incapacitated.

In our case we could just get married, but I have never liked the idea of relying on that while plenty of other couples can't get married. I've felt that way for many years, but now that VA has specifically denied those couples any possibility of gaining those privileges, I'd feel even worse about it.

The more VA does this kind of crap, the more I feel like moving back to MD.

[free-of-whip.livejournal.com]

Virginia is also known for being one of the few states that does not permit a second parent adoption by a gay partner. A family from our synagogue moved to Maryland when their first child was born, because Virginia provided no way that both of them could have parental rights and responsibilities with respect to the child.

[geekchick]

Well, I'd be game assuming we moved someplace where I could easily get to 15 so I could get to work without taking the Beltway during rush hour.

[telnar.livejournal.com]

This reasoning sounds like "There a fly, let's swat it with a 1000lb bomb -- it's much harder to miss. Besides, no one will miss the house it's in anyway."

After I finished that thought, I realized that I'm implicitly assuming that there is a more targeted way for a city to aim at and only at illegal immigrants if that's really their concern. Does anyone know if there is?

[winterbadger]

After I finished that thought, I realized that I'm implicitly assuming that there is a more targeted way for a city to aim at and only at illegal immigrants if that's really their concern. Does anyone know if there is?

Yes. Penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. Only, of course, people don't mind illegal immigrants WORKING in their communities. They just don't wany them LIVING in them.

Grrrrrr.

[telnar.livejournal.com]

Is that true? My impression was that cities wouldn't be in a position to enforce federal laws against hiring illegal immigrants, or constitutionally permitted to pass their own, but I haven't followed the details on this.

[geekchick]

I'm not sure if there is. All of the measures I've seen, like this one in Manassas or Fairfax wanting to impose criminal sanctions against landlords who rent to more than four unrelated people (I think that's what's desired, there's a reference in the article I linked to originally), seem to be ones that while technically can be enforced against anyone, in practice overwhelmingly affect people who are perceived to be illegal immigrants (whether they are or not; the family in the original article are U.S. citizens). This doesn't mean there isn't a better way to address the problem (assuming one considers it a problem, which these folks obviously do), but I don't know that anyone's thought it out.

[free-of-whip.livejournal.com]

So, if easy_living and I move to Manassas, and my kids move in with us, we're automatically illegal?

And if this is not racist, then why does it apply, "even when the total is below the occupancy limit." It seems to me the occupancy limit is the appropriate way of regulating overcrowding.

. o 0 (Now I remember why I live in Maryland.)

[geekchick]

So, if easy_living and I move to Manassas, and my kids move in with us, we're automatically illegal?

No, because your kids fall within the allowable extent of consanguinity, if I understand it correctly. Your kids or your parents would count as family and you can have as many of them living with you as you can cram into the house, it seems. If you and easy_living were to move to Manassas and a nephew and a niece move in with you, however, one of them would have to go. They don't count as family for purposes of this regulation.

I suppose they can claim it's not (technically) racist because they'd enforce it against anyone who received a complaint. The catch there being is that the complaints have been overwhelmingly against Hispanic families, and they don't enforce unless there's been a complaint.