Constance, I think it is interesting that St. Paul residents have been mulling passing a similiar ordinance. Many college towns around the country have such ordinances or zoning rules designed to keep "frats" or similiar concentrations of students out of residential neighborhoods. In Michigan where unmarried heterosexual couples cohabitating or unmarried men and women cohabitating was technically illegal(it's still an unresolved question but believed overturned by the U.S Supremes sodomy case decision)part of the desire behind such ordinances was to eliminate homes of "ill repute."
When I was in student government at WMU in Kalamazoo, MI the local government was trying to pass a similiar ordinance. The fear and/or reality of nuisance arising from such households does seem rather arbitrary. It does seem that it would be better to leave such issues up to home owners when safety is not impinged and respond to behavioral or nuisance problems as they arise. David Strand --- Constance Nompelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been told by CM Schiff that the city > definition > of "family," at least with regard to the M1 zoning, > does in fact include domestic partners now. > > This is a step in the right direction, but may still > require the individuals to out themselves in order > to > prove their compliance, should that ever be called > into question by neighbors or whomever. This could > have negative effects for the individuals. > Furthermore, I am not sure if unmarried heterosexual > partners count. > > (Gary, can you clarify on that? Sorry I forgot to > ask > before!) > > My point is that individuals should be able to live > with one another as they choose (within reason based > upon safety standards) without having to justify or > explain their relationships to the city or their > neighbors. > > Jim M. is quite right when he points out that while > unrelated tenants "might do this" or "might do > that," > such speculation is not grounds for an ordinance > proscribing their living arrangements. > Additionally, > I would like to point out that many people who > choose > such living arrangements do so because of financial > need. I would bet that those who are most adamantly > against such arrangements are homeowners who have a > bit more cash. Infer what you will. > > Finally, CM Schiff pointed out that this zoning rule > originated out of a desire to keep fraternity houses > out of residential neighborhoods. It adds a little > specificity to the conversation, but does not > ultimately change my stance. If fraternity houses > make noise or otherwise create unlivable conditions, > cite them for that. Same with families that do the > above. We should not penalize either one based upon > an *assumption* of how they will behave. > > Connie Nompelis > Ventura Village > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product > search > http://shopping.yahoo.com > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the > list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing > it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic > Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
