Marry or get out, US town tells unwed parents

Homeowners associations can definitely have their rules and regulations. But if those regulations discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin it violates federal law.

 

If they stated that was the reason you were refused a place for rent, they were violating federal law and you had the legal right to sue. Of course, smart landlords aware of the law can make these illegal discriminations and easily avoid lawsuits by choosing their words carefully.

 

Reading the act further, it seems like discriminating on "familial status" is with regard to the presence of children and does not make mention of marital status. So it may be legal to discriminate based on marital status.

Apparently there are still several states including Missouri that do not include marital status in their housing discrimination legislation.

[ May 26, 2006, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

So, we know it's against the law to set community standards, unless those standards are politically correct, but the part of my question in the parentheses is "should it be?"

 

It is against the law to set community standards that are against the law, and yes it should be that way. We shouldn't make legal exceptions for religous folks because it appears politically correct to those communities to make illegal discriminations.

 

But, should those standards be illegal in planned communities? I'm not asking whether Christians should be exempted, nor any other group. I'm not asking about existing communities.

 

If a town, state or country reserves the best houses, jobs, parks, schools to "like-minded" people, then an agrieved class is created which may well attempt to redress its grievences through violent overthrow - much like the American revolutionaries, the Irish in Northern Ireland, the Bengalis in East Pakistan, the Hutus in Rwanda, etc, etc.

The Amish and the Mennonites keep to themselves, but socially rather than legally.

Retirement communities, on the other hand, seem to get away with reverse age discrimination.

 

So, would it be OK, if those who wanted some sort of community standards did not live in the best houses, etc?

And yes, retirement communities "get away" with age discrimination, and I think that's fine. But, other communities should be able to set standards as well.

 

Actually there is a turf battle in a slum district in NYC between one Hassidic Jewish sect and the other, poor, primarily black & Latino people. The Hassidim, who are politically powerful because they deliver votes, want to claim public housing for themselves only because they must be within walking distance of their synagogue. The other poor just want to live in the neighborhood they grew up in.

I'd like to see how long your planned community gives over "the best" to outsiders at roughly comparable prices.

Why?

 

You should have the freedom to associate with whomever you want, and disassociate as well. As long as it's grandfathered in, you know precisely what you're getting yourself into when you sign on the dotted line.

Why should they prohibit a paper mill from opening up in your neighborhood? Why should they not be permitted to open a strip bar in your neighborhood?

 

You do have the right to associate and disassociate as you please; you can invite only "like-minded" people to your private house and private club (as long as you don't try to claim tax exemptions for it). How does your grandfathering work? Can your unlike-minded old neighbor sell his house to another unlike-minded person if he can get a better price or do you want to restrict who he can sell to?

First, many places zone for residential and industrial/business. Second, papermills really, really stink to the point of nausea, so that can be a legitimate nuisance. Stripbars are not all that easy to prohibit if other businesses are allowed in the neighborhood.

 

Earlier, I explained this. Where I used to live, they banned mobile homes. But, since there were existing mobile homes, they had to be grandfathered in. That means they could sell it to someone as a mobile home property, but that person had to understand that he could not sell it as mobile home property.

This brings to mind: Should communities be permitted to prohibit mobile homes? Why or why not?

 

Are you saying the original owner could sell the property without restrictions on him, but with restrictions on the new owner reselling? Do mobile home properites include the mobile home itself? What is the objection?

I don't know much about the issues involved as I live in a scarce-land area. I've seen mobile homes that don't look mobile once they are on their foundations. Mobile homes are distinct from trailer homes which really are readily mobile, right? I personally have no problem with either, but if you'd like to mention the issues, we could discuss it if you like.

If it is a covenant to keep poor people out and so keep property values high, I would not vote in favor of it even though I understand that most Americans' wealth is bound to their home.