David Piehl wrote: > It is odd, though, that occupancy is determined by > someone's definition of who is related. Technically, > more people than could physically fit into a building > could be legal to live there if they're all related, > whereas 5 unrelated people would be illegal in a > 10,000 square foot house. Seems like occupancy would > better be determined by square footage, but that gets > into value judgements as well - how do you tell > someone that their whole family can't live in a > certain house because there are too many of them?? > > David Piehl > Central
MN: It seems to me that you may have answered your own question, David. Aren't there city ordinances that specify how many people can legally occupy a given space regardless of their relation to one another? Fire codes apply in public spaces, and at least some businesses. I don't know about residential spaces. Would the health department have any jurisdiction in these matters? I hope they do, because in my neighborhood there are several houses that are fast approaching the tipping point as far as too many occupants per square foot. How do you tell someone that their whole family can't live in a certain house because there are too many of them? Tell them that we don't want them to be in the same situation that made alot of people come here from places that are overcrowded, economically poor, and in terms of public health, dangerous. I don't think any value judgement is involved there. Mike Nelson Central 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
