Missouri twon denies occ. permit to couple with kids BECAUSE

[napi21]

even though they've been together 13 years, THEY AREN'T MARRIED!!!!

Apparently they bought a house about a month ago, but the town is denying them an occupancy permit because their law says to occupy a home in their town, you must be single, related, or married!

The story isn't on CNN, but a short video is.

Click on the link, and go down to the "Watch free video" section. It's the first (and most popular one.

http://www.cnn.com/

I'm sure glad I don't live in Missouri!

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. They are related.

Through their kids.

?????

On Edit -- Let me guess. They're a mixed race couple.

[BlooInBloo]

3. I don't think that qualifies as a guess... lol

Rather like: a mistake was made at the grocery store checkout - let me guess: it was in the store's favor.

That shit ain't guessing.... lolol

[delete_bush]

8. In this case, being of mixed race is not

the issue. If you watch the video, there was a "white" family that they pulled the same stunt on earlier. Not sure if this couple was buying or renting, but they moved away.

Notwithstanding the lunacy of the law in this particular case, there should at least be a disclosure when buying a house regarding occupancy requirements.

[BlooInBloo]

9. It never is, eh? lol

Unless they use the word "nigger", it ain't racism.... Anything else can be given an alternate explanation....

[delete_bush]

11. I didn't state that it never is, and it could have been

presnet here. But in this particular case, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present. Otherwise the "facts" seem to indicate otherwise. But don't let that stop you from finding racism wherever you choose to find it.

[BlooInBloo]

12. You don't have to say it once and for all time....

... just as long as every individual case that comes down gets that assessment. Piecemeal institutional racism enabling, as it were.

As for the burden of proof issue:

Grocery store check-outs charge customers for the wrong amount sometimes. An investigation showed that 80+% of the errors were in the store's favor. On whom should the burden of proof lie do you think?

(Imaginary conversation) It's an AMAZING COINCIDENCE, your honor, that so many of the charges were in our favor. For years even. But the other side has presented no specific evidence that there's anything untoward happening.


I reject your view of where the burden of proof lies.

[delete_bush]

15. Well, I reject your rejection.

From the FTC -

By and large, grocery stores and other retail outlets using electronic price scanners are charging consumers the correct prices, and when scanned prices don't match the shelf or sale prices, consumers get the slightly better deal overall, according to a study released today by staff of the Federal Trade Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and several state Attorneys General and/or other state and local officials.

"There's some good news for consumers in this study," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "We've known for years that price scanner technology speeds up the checkout process, gives consumers detailed receipts showing what they bought and how much they paid, and reduces overhead costs. Today's study should give consumers some confidence that they're not being cheated.

Of the items checked for the study, 2.58 percent scanned lower than the posted or advertised price, while 2.24 percent scanned higher, for a total error rate of 4.82 percent. The total dollar amount of undercharges, $1,319.67, exceeded total overcharges, $1,172.72, for a net consumer gain of $146.95. The study also showed a net gain for the sampled products at discount stores, where total undercharges exceeded overcharges by $49, at food stores where the net undercharge was $9.83, and at department stores where the net undercharge was $119.51.

From a different study -

The AZ Department of Weights and Measures also reviews the number of errors that register as undercharges (in favor of the customer) and overcharges (in favor of the retailer). Based on the inspections conducted this year, scanning errors were in favor of the public almost 2 to 1.

Again, try not to let the facts get in your way.

[BlooInBloo]

17. LOL - nice!

The study I was thinking of was a few years back - 5 minutes on google didn't turn it up - though it did of course turn up yours.

I rescind the example - but it was only an example....

[delete_bush]

18. I'll let you in on a little secret,

I've never lost a battle when the topic for debate is grocery store scanning systems!
:toast:

[realisticphish]

2. i'm rooming

with a member of the opposite sex. we aren't in a relationship, beyond friends, but i assume to missouri i'd be "living in sin."

which brings up roommates in general. so no one could have a roommate?

[KansDem]

4. "...so no one could have a roommate?"

Only if you're married to him/her...

[AllegroRondo]

7. The law is no more than 3 unrelated people in one household

so you could have a roommate, or 2.

[realisticphish]

10. so why is this an issue?

if there are less than 3 unrelated people (forgive me, i'm at work and can't watch the video)

[Nikia]

19. There are three children involved

But they are all related to the mother and 2 of the three are related to the mother. Even if they don't consider the adults related, you have the mother and children all related and then the man. By my calculations, there are less than 3 unrelated people.

[eyesroll]

5. So people can't have roommates in that town either?

:shrug:

[havocmom]

6. Lots of rental agreements in other places make the same requirement

No roomies. Kinda makes life tough in high rent markets, doesn't it? Just another way to force more consummerism than people can afford.

[northofdenali]

13. This may be against federal law, if the HUD website is accurate:

"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)."

(Bolding is mine)

Hopefully, they'll sue. If anyone here knows these folks, FindLaw lists a number of civil rights attorneys in the St. Louis area (looks like these folks' town, Blackjack, is closest to that big city): http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/firm/Civil-Rights/Saint-Louis/Missouri

Law Offices of Steven K. Brown - Brentwood, Missouri Website | Profile

Humphrey, Siegler & Kale, LLC - St. Louis, Missouri Website | Profile

Law Offices of Steven K. Brown - St Louis, Missouri Website | Profile

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP - St Louis, Missouri Profile

Kilo, Flynn, Billingsley, Trame & Brown , P.C. - St. Louis, Missouri Profile

Lashly & Baer, P.C. - St. Louis, Missouri Profile

Edward B. Beis P.C. - St Louis, Missouri Profile

Willoughby Law Firm - St. Louis, Missouri Profile

Kortenhof & Ely, P.C. - St Louis, Missouri Profile
Weinhaus, Dobson, Goldberg and Moreland - St Louis, Missouri Profile
Newton G. McCoy - St. Louis,, Missouri Profile
Harry F. Swanger - St Louis, Missouri Profile
Ryals & Soffer, P.C. - St Louis, Missouri Profile
Nangle & Nangle, P.C. - St Louis, Missouri Profile

Profiles, etc. available at FindLaw, which is one heck of a resource for those who need it.

And, to Blackjack, Missouri,

FUCK YOU!!

[MadHound]

14. This is either a race issue, or somebody has it out for this couple

For issues other than race.

I've cohabitated with a member of the opposite sex on a couple of different occaissions, once down in SW Missouri, which is the buckle of the Bible belt. Neither time have I had a problem. Nor has any other couple that I know or have heard of, it is simply no big deal. Even when you have an African American man living with two women(granted this was in a college town)

So either we have a bunch a racist assholes in the town, not suprising at all, or these two have pissed off the townies for some other reason, a possibility, there are groups of people in this state that hold grudges for generations.

Either way, I hope this couple takes these assholes to the cleaner.

[AllegroRondo]

16. Update - city reviewing its ordinance

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/neighborhoods/stories.nsf/news/story/84D28A11C795507E8625713E00775A97?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2C%22black%22+AND+%22jack%22


The mayor says it was "never intended to deny occupancy to unmarried parents". The original intent was to prevent frat houses and boarding houses.