|
|
|
| Sat, Sep. 04 - - Mobile - RSS | ALERTS | | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Stafford reacts to 'family' lawsuit
Stafford officials react to lawsuit challenging county's definition of 'family'
RELATED: Family rule disputed
Date published: 8/2/2008 BY KAFIA HOSH Stafford County officials had mixed reactions yesterday to a lawsuit challenging an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated people living in a single-family home. In June, the Board of Supervisors added a definition of "family" to the county code and amended the zoning ordinance to allow only four people not related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship to live in a residential dwelling. North Stafford resident Nailah S.C. Jaha filed suit in Stafford Circuit Court challenging the definition of family. She claims the ordinance will impede her plans to have her brother, his girlfriend and the girlfriend's two children move into her home. In light of the lawsuit, Aquia Supervisor Paul Milde said he plans to bring the ordinance back up for discussion. While he voted for the amendment, Milde said he had reservations about the restriction on unrelated people living together. "I agree with the plaintiff, that we have no business as a county making a distinction between unwed parents and wed parents," he said. Milde said he voted for the amendment because it addressed safety concerns such as noise pollution and residential streets crammed with cars. "If I had a chance to do it again, I'd make sure we protected parents that weren't married," he said. "This was a safety ordinance. It was designed to keep overcrowded situations from happening." Board Chairman George Schwartz, who voted against the amendment, said it didn't consider all of the types of possible living arrangements. "On balance, I didn't agree with the attempt by the board to define a family," he said. "We don't know what's coming up the line." Stafford is one of several localities that have recently regulated the number of people living in a dwelling. "The ordinance is almost identical to ordinances passed in other surrounding counties," said Garrisonville Supervisor Mark Dudenhefer, who supported the amendment. "Our attorney looked at what we did before we did it. They feel that it's viable, and therefore we'll have to see what a judge says." Supervisors vehemently denied the lawsuit's allegation that the ordinance is racially discriminatory because "African-Americans have historically defined family to include a number of broader relationships that need not be formalized by marriage, blood or adoption." "I think it's a reach to "I don't think race has anything to do with this," added Milde. "There are plenty of non-black parents that are not married, and I wouldn't want it to be discriminatory against them, either." Kafia Hosh: 540/735-1977
What about college roomates?
(posted by
oldlady
, Aug. 2, 2008 10:15 pm)
How does this new ordinance/law affect college roomates such as 5 different students sharing a 5 bedroom home?
What is the REAL Purpose?
(posted by
Nikkee
, Aug. 2, 2008 12:44 pm)
What is the real purpose behind what Stafford Co was trying to do? If it was to deal with illegals, then deal with illegals, but don't pass an ordinance that affects others. Prince William Co is dealing with the issue directly...like it or not. If the Fed Gov refuses to do anything, it's left up to the local governments to handle the issue of illegals. Come here legally, no problem. Come here illegally...get deported...it's really simple!
Cover Up
(posted by
Planet
, Aug. 2, 2008 12:20 pm)
If it truly is about safety and "limiting noise pollution and residential streets crammed with cars" as Paul Milde stated, why not make the ordnance against cars and noise pollution instead of trying to define families? These ordnances probably already exist. I think this is an attempt by the board to try to cover up discriminatory practices and regulate illegal aliens. Notice that others tie this to illegal aliens, cut you don't see this terminology used by the board.
Re: Purpose of Statute
(posted by
Aidia
, Aug. 2, 2008 11:58 am)
Well, if the statute was motivated towards resident aliens, the county must prove a compelling reason for the ordinance or it will fail.
If it was motivated towards illegal aliens, and if the government has any rational basis at all for the law, it will stand. (aka family loses).
If it was truly motivated by safety alone, this family will have to prove there is no conceivable rational basis for the ordinance (aka family loses).
How is he out of line???
(posted by
roadraid
, Aug. 2, 2008 11:31 am)
He has every right to express that opinion. I agree wholeheartedly with him. The criminal immigrants who have strained our infrastructure must be addressed. While I don't really see "noise pollution" as a "safety issue", I certainly think it's a quality of life issue. And to all of the illegal immigrant apoligists: I hope you don't get hit by one of these unlicensed immigrant drivers without insurance, because he sure ain't sticking around to exchange info with ya. Learned the hard way.
|
 |
||
|
||
