Rather than implement a family neutral rule on occupancy limits in residential housing, the Washington Post reports today that the City of Manassas has implemented an ordinance that sets a new government definition of family that says a nephew is not a family member. The new rule would allow a mother and father and 16 children to live in a 5 bedroom house, but prohibits a mother, father, two sons, a nephew, a roomer and his girlfriend from occupying the same residence. And, the ordinance is enforced primarily based on complaints. Surprise… most complaints have been against Latinos, who among other things come from a culture in which extended families often live together.
You can understand why the woman and her husband featured in the story (both now citizens who are immigrants) might be confused about why their “family” can’t live together but another “family” can (even if that family is significantly larger).
“Considering, though, that every house on her block more or less resembles hers, and considering that she has only seven people living in a five-bedroom house, she was suspicious about why she was singled out. As far as she knew, she and her husband were just doing what any normal family would do to make it.”
If crowding or multiple cars are the problems they can be addressed by neutral rules that apply equally to all.
The effect of the ordinance on this hard working immigrant family is to require them to sell their $270,000 house (mortgage $3500) and become renters.
Here’s how the city official explains the change in the ordinance:
Then Brian Smith, chief building official, stood up to explain the new concept in town: consanguinity.
Under the city’s old, broad definition of family, just about any group of relatives, however distantly related, was allowed to share a single-family house, along with one unrelated person.
The problem with that, Smith explained, was that when inspectors responded to a complaint, they often found houses full of aunts, uncles, cousins and extended relatives but no violations, because the total number was below the occupancy limit.
“We were stymied by families who met the existing definition,” Smith said. And so the city changed the rules to break up more households.
If homeowners don’t exceed the occupancy limit in their residence, why is the City interested in breaking up their household? If the occupancy limits were too high, why weren’t they lowered? If this isn’t a safety issue, what is the issue? Demand on services? Oh, I get it, an aunt or a nephew demands more services than a child or a parent?
Rules that are not neutral; disparate enforcement against Latinos; perhaps the City official should have said “homogeneity” instead of “consanguinity”?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.