Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Some neighborhood around 71st and Lewis.

Somehow, that makes me even more edgy.  If that's possible.

[disabled]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by disabled

I think the ordinance  should be called the "The City of Tulsa Welcomes You to the Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance":

To new or existing blended families of five where the man & women aren't married:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but you are no longer considered a family.

To new or existing foster care families: Welcome to the neighborhood, but get a special exception or leave.

To anyone whose mom or dad or kid might need a live-in helper: Welcome to the neighborhood. But get a special exception or leave.

To any of the above thinking about moving within a square mile of somebody with a live-in nurse:  We won't even pretend you are welcome; we don't want clusters of losers.

I think you misunderstand the ordinance.  If you have 4 or less (or 6 or less depending on the ultimate decision by city council) unrealted people, even if they are a live-in helpers, you are still considered a family, and won't have to do anything.  

As for blended families, as long as you are related by blood or marriage, this wouldn't apply.  Common law marriage, as far as I know, still exists in Oklahoma.

As for homes with foster children, these are specifically defined and allowed in residential areas (provided there are less than 6 children total), and have nothing to do with neighborhood or community group homes.

Granted the ordinance is poorly drafted, but my interpretation is correct. One person with a live in nurse is defined as not a family, and a neighorhood group home is defined as anywhere care is provided that does not meet the definition of a family.

As for foster care, they are in fact swept up by this ordinance. Just because they are covered elsewhere does not mean this section is inapplicable.

As for blended families, many (maybe most) co-habiting couples are NOT in a common law marriage since they do not hold themselves out as married, or meet the other tests necessary to be in a common law marriage.

This ordinance stinks.  A law student drafting this would probably receive a failing grade, both in terms of its ambiguity, and the fact that it violates the ADA on its face both by singling out people with disabilities and subjecting them to a 1/2 radius test.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by disabled

Granted the ordinance is poorly drafted, but my interpretation is correct.

It's better just to be wrong, and skip on to the other reasons this thing is BS.  And I'm with you, it is BS.  There are plenty of reasons to complain about it.  I'm just stuck on the motive; revenge on MHAT via "group homes", of all things.  It seems to be the only adequate explanation for this, particularly given the timing.

On this issue, I'd consider pmcalk the most dependable source of straight technical dope.  Better to nod, and move on.  There are plenty of other areas to nail this on.

[Neptune]

http://www.whoownstulsa.org/ourstory.html#creation

I'm fairly certain that directly or indirectly, the "org" above had something to do with this.  Wherever it technically "originated."

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by disabled


As for blended families, many (maybe most) co-habiting couples are NOT in a common law marriage since they do not hold themselves out as married, or meet the other tests necessary to be in a common law marriage.

Common law marriage ended in Oklahoma in 1997. Presumably existing common law marriages are still in force, such as they are, but no new ones can be created.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by disabled

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by disabled

I think the ordinance  should be called the "The City of Tulsa Welcomes You to the Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance":

To new or existing blended families of five where the man & women aren't married:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but you are no longer considered a family.

To new or existing foster care families: Welcome to the neighborhood, but get a special exception or leave.

To anyone whose mom or dad or kid might need a live-in helper: Welcome to the neighborhood. But get a special exception or leave.

To any of the above thinking about moving within a square mile of somebody with a live-in nurse:  We won't even pretend you are welcome; we don't want clusters of losers.

I think you misunderstand the ordinance.  If you have 4 or less (or 6 or less depending on the ultimate decision by city council) unrealted people, even if they are a live-in helpers, you are still considered a family, and won't have to do anything.  

As for blended families, as long as you are related by blood or marriage, this wouldn't apply.  Common law marriage, as far as I know, still exists in Oklahoma.

As for homes with foster children, these are specifically defined and allowed in residential areas (provided there are less than 6 children total), and have nothing to do with neighborhood or community group homes.

Granted the ordinance is poorly drafted, but my interpretation is correct. One person with a live in nurse is defined as not a family, and a neighorhood group home is defined as anywhere care is provided that does not meet the definition of a family.

As for foster care, they are in fact swept up by this ordinance. Just because they are covered elsewhere does not mean this section is inapplicable.

As for blended families, many (maybe most) co-habiting couples are NOT in a common law marriage since they do not hold themselves out as married, or meet the other tests necessary to be in a common law marriage.

This ordinance stinks.  A law student drafting this would probably receive a failing grade, both in terms of its ambiguity, and the fact that it violates the ADA on its face both by singling out people with disabilities and subjecting them to a 1/2 radius test.

I'm guessing you are not a law student.  Please trust me when I say you don't know what you are talking about.

In single family neighborhoods (those zoned RE or RS), anything that is classified as "use unit 6" is permitted by right--which means you can exist without any special exception or without getting approval.  Use unit 6 includes "families" and "foster homes".  So if you are a family or a foster home, you get to live in RS & RE districts.  No need for the BOA, no need for the government at all.

Right now a family is defined as up to 6 unrelated individuals (8, if you are disabled and need adult supervision).  No more than 8 are ever allowed.  The new definition would lower that definition of families to either 4 or 6 total, regardless of supervision.  One person with a live in nurse would clearly still be a family.  And if you are related, then the numbers don't matter.  The new definition would allow more unrelated people to live together, through a special exception, unlike now, where it is just not allowed.

If the number remains at 6, there will be no change for "blended families".  If it's lowered by two, you might have more problems, if you refuse to define yourself as husband and wife (common law marriage requirements are actually quite loose).  

The only other change would be the 1/2 mile spacing requirement.

There are legitimate reasons to object to the ordinance.  Maybe you don't like the spacing requirement.  Maybe you have no problem with 8 adults (possibly all having a car) living next to you, and you don't think that number should be lowered.

But the idea that foster homes and blended families will be prohibited is simply wrong.

[disabled]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by disabled

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by disabled

I think the ordinance  should be called the "The City of Tulsa Welcomes You to the Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance":

To new or existing blended families of five where the man & women aren't married:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but you are no longer considered a family.

To new or existing foster care families: Welcome to the neighborhood, but get a special exception or leave.

To anyone whose mom or dad or kid might need a live-in helper: Welcome to the neighborhood. But get a special exception or leave.

To any of the above thinking about moving within a square mile of somebody with a live-in nurse:  We won't even pretend you are welcome; we don't want clusters of losers.

I think you misunderstand the ordinance.  If you have 4 or less (or 6 or less depending on the ultimate decision by city council) unrealted people, even if they are a live-in helpers, you are still considered a family, and won't have to do anything.  

As for blended families, as long as you are related by blood or marriage, this wouldn't apply.  Common law marriage, as far as I know, still exists in Oklahoma.

As for homes with foster children, these are specifically defined and allowed in residential areas (provided there are less than 6 children total), and have nothing to do with neighborhood or community group homes.

Granted the ordinance is poorly drafted, but my interpretation is correct. One person with a live in nurse is defined as not a family, and a neighorhood group home is defined as anywhere care is provided that does not meet the definition of a family.

As for foster care, they are in fact swept up by this ordinance. Just because they are covered elsewhere does not mean this section is inapplicable.

As for blended families, many (maybe most) co-habiting couples are NOT in a common law marriage since they do not hold themselves out as married, or meet the other tests necessary to be in a common law marriage.

This ordinance stinks.  A law student drafting this would probably receive a failing grade, both in terms of its ambiguity, and the fact that it violates the ADA on its face both by singling out people with disabilities and subjecting them to a 1/2 radius test.

I'm guessing you are not a law student.  Please trust me when I say you don't know what you are talking about.

In single family neighborhoods (those zoned RE or RS), anything that is classified as "use unit 6" is permitted by right--which means you can exist without any special exception or without getting approval.  Use unit 6 includes "families" and "foster homes".  So if you are a family or a foster home, you get to live in RS & RE districts.  No need for the BOA, no need for the government at all.

Right now a family is defined as up to 6 unrelated individuals (8, if you are disabled and need adult supervision).  No more than 8 are ever allowed.  The new definition would lower that definition of families to either 4 or 6 total, regardless of supervision.  One person with a live in nurse would clearly still be a family.  And if you are related, then the numbers don't matter.  The new definition would allow more unrelated people to live together, through a special exception, unlike now, where it is just not allowed.

If the number remains at 6, there will be no change for "blended families".  If it's lowered by two, you might have more problems, if you refuse to define yourself as husband and wife (common law marriage requirements are actually quite loose).  

The only other change would be the 1/2 mile spacing requirement.

There are legitimate reasons to object to the ordinance.  Maybe you don't like the spacing requirement.  Maybe you have no problem with 8 adults (possibly all having a car) living next to you, and you don't think that number should be lowered.

But the idea that foster homes and blended families will be prohibited is simply wrong.

Table B refers to "single family dwelling" as use unit 6, as you say.  However, the change in the definition of family proposed by the ordinance applies to the entire Title 42, not just the use unit 6. This is also true for the newly changed definitions of "community group home" and "neighborhood group home."  I am not sure how a household that will no longer meet the new zoning code's definition of "family" can be consider a "single family dwelling" and therefore be entitled to use unit 6 by right.

The last sentence in the new code-wide definition of family, reads as follows:
"Individuals not related...occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site...nursing care...shall not be considered a family as defined herein."

One person with a live-in nurse is defined as NOT a family. Therefore, how can they be entitled to use unit 6 as a "single family dwelling" ?  This might not be what was intended, but there's a drafting problem.

As to foster homes, you are probably right, unless live-in nursing care is provided. In that case, someone could argue that the residence is now a group home.

[disabled]

By the way,  pmcalk, if the issue is too many cars, why not regulate that (eg. Residents of a single dwelling  may not have more than X cars parked on the street, without a special exception) rather than pick on people with disabilities, many of whom don't even own cars?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

(common law marriage requirements are actually quite loose).  

The rules were loose when common law marriage existed, which it no longer does.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

(common law marriage requirements are actually quite loose).  

The rules were loose when common law marriage existed, which it no longer does.

Untrue (common law marriage still exists, but there is a 5 part check to see if the couple qualifies).

The bill in 2005 that was supposed to ban common-law marriage in OK died in committee.

http://marriage.about.com/od/commonlaw/qt/oklacommon.htm

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by disabled

By the way,  pmcalk, if the issue is too many cars, why not regulate that (eg. Residents of a single dwelling  may not have more than X cars parked on the street, without a special exception) rather than pick on people with disabilities, many of whom don't even own cars?

That's a good point.  You're probably directing that at the wrong person, but that's a good point.  One that should be hammered home.

If this zoning change were about cars, and we wanted to be car-Nazi's about it all, why not zone for cars?  It's not about cars.  If someone says this is about cars, clearly they're mistaken or lying.  

Again, if I wanted to take out revenge on "group homes", I sure would not say that publicly.  I'd give some other explanation, even though I'd clearly be lying.

[Limabean]

Why would you think my comments are proposing revenge on the Mental Health authority?

I believe their mission is incredibly admirable. They offer comfort and protection to a part of the population that most Tulsans would choose to ignore.

Does the Mental Health Authority directly operate all group homes? Aren't some of these operated by businesses? Perhaps that is what they are trying to regulate.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by Limabean

Why would you think my comments are proposing revenge on the Mental Health authority?

I believe their mission is incredibly admirable. They offer comfort and protection to a part of the population that most Tulsans would choose to ignore.

Does the Mental Health Authority directly operate all group homes? Aren't some of these operated by businesses? Perhaps that is what they are trying to regulate.

I'm not saying that you specifically are proposing revenge; just indirectly.  You are correct, it is not about zoning.  It's about the object being zoned.

And you're correct, MHAT clearly does not run all "group homes".  And this does not in any way appear to effect the type of projects like the THA/MHAT project near White City; directly.

Every comment I've seen on why this should pass, involves revenge.  Every single one.  Every comment I've seen, here or anywhere, ties MHAT, White City, the proposed zoning changes, and other neighborhoods, together.  No one, not one single person, is acting like these are unrelated.  And that's pretty much what has to be proven, for this not to be "revenge."  Even you aren't trying to say these are unrelated.

quote:Originally posted by Limabean

I would venture a guess that the majority of Tulsans don't spend their time educationg themselves about the complexities of city zoning laws. They are busy doing the mundane things like working, raising famalies, etc.

Most citizens, like those in White City and near Sonoma Grande, pay their taxes, elect their city councilors and mayor and assume that the city will protect their property values.

When citizens are blind-sided by completely incompatable developement, their only recourse is to organize and petition their government.

For the record, I believe the biggest issue of White City residents was the fact that their councilor, Eric Gomez, did not bother to inform them of the impending development.

Were the citizens of White City over-reacting? You decide,, it turns out that the city council, the mayor, the TMHA, their lawyers and the Tulsa World and who knows who else lined-up against them.

Anyone is naive to think it is just about zoning issues.

It's an uphill battle.  The rhetorical evidence is overwhelming. The timing is unbelievable.  A lot of almost certainly related things, have to be proven "unrelated", for it not to be revenge.  It's not just what you said, it's what literally everyone who is "for" this says.

[jamesrage]

Doesn't Tulsa have sparsely populated and undeveloped areas of town that these shelters can be built at? It seems to me that these areas should be considered first before they weasel their way into neighborhoods.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by jamesrage

Doesn't Tulsa have sparsely populated and undeveloped areas of town that these shelters can be built at? It seems to me that these areas should be considered first before they weasel their way into neighborhoods.

That would likely be illegal; to build out in the middle of nowhere, far away from the amenities of civilization.

Outside of institutionalization, which is less likely every day, these folks can't be "quarantined", just because they have disabilities.