Discussions running around Springfield lately have landed on this question: "What is a family?" This is an important question. For zoning purposes, any group of people may share a living space in a single family neighborhood provided they are either 1.) related by blood or marriage or 2.) there are five (Six per the state) or fewer people sharing this space.
In 1994 a case went before the Supreme Court "City of Edmonds v. Oxford House" because the house had more than the maximum unrelated density and the city was attempting to shut it down. The house had 10-12 people living in it and wanted to be counted as a single family for zoning purposes.
The Supreme Court decided with the sober/halfway house because recovering alcoholics are covered under the Fair Housing Act as persons with disabilities.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_23
Since this has been settled in the courts so many times before, how about focusing some of this energy on matters like...saving historic properties from the bulldozers? A much better use of our time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZliC14QUY0Y&feature=related
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-23.ZO.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-23.ZO.html)
QuoteThe parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold question: Edmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a "family" is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under §3607(b)(1). It remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions against Oxford House violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set out in §§3604(f)(1)(A) and (f)(3)(B). For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Affirmed.
As Judge Sarokin of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey said so well in Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield:
QuoteThere are few among us who do not have a friend or relative who has suffered the ravages of drugs or alcohol. They are persons who need our compassion and require our support. . . what this matter truly needs is not judicial action, whether it be state or federal, but for the parties to search their consciences, recognize the needs and hopes of the plaintiffs and the concerns and fears of the neighbors, and arrive at an accommodation which serves and enriches all who are involved in and affected by it.
Quote from: sheclown on October 01, 2009, 06:25:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZliC14QUY0Y&feature=related
You had me right up until the Spice Girls. :D
Quote from: AlexS on October 01, 2009, 02:15:54 PM
As Judge Sarokin of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey said so well in Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield:
QuoteThere are few among us who do not have a friend or relative who has suffered the ravages of drugs or alcohol. They are persons who need our compassion and require our support. . . what this matter truly needs is not judicial action, whether it be state or federal, but for the parties to search their consciences, recognize the needs and hopes of the plaintiffs and the concerns and fears of the neighbors, and arrive at an accommodation which serves and enriches all who are involved in and affected by it.
Sarokin's clearly not a SPAR member...
"but for the parties to search their consciences, recognize the needs and hopes of the plaintiffs AND the concerns and fears of the neighbors, and arrive at an accommodation which serves and enriches all who are involved in and affected by it."
Did you skip over this part? People keep defending the needs and hopes of the halfway houses but downplaying the needs and hopes of residents. There are two parties involved whose concerns need to be addressed.