Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by 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

Oklahoma code specifically states that the only valid marriages in Oklahoma are those which are licensed.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

What bugs me though is when people subscribe ulterior motives to people putting this forward, when the real problem is simply that our zoning code is confusing.

Typically, that might bug me.  But not in zoning.  Not after the Medlock/Bates/Guierwoods/F&M Bank debacle.  While certainly "confusion" was free to roam, there were a multitude of motives.  

Believing in the altruism and honesty of citizens; there is something to be said for it.  It probably is an admirable version of naive; it's still naive.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by 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

Oklahoma code specifically states that the only valid marriages in Oklahoma are those which are licensed.

Yes, but even after the code was passed, courts have continued to recognize common law marriage.  Why, I don't know.

[disabled]

pm caulk, This is NOT a "minor" adjustment to the zoning code.  For starters, in the definition of family, it removes the sentence allowing certain uses now considered a family, and in its place adds a sentence specifically removing those uses from the definition.

For the first time ever, it defines with respect to the existence of a disability. Never before done in the Code.

It requires pre-existing uses to go get zoning clearances by July 1.

And perhaps worst of all, it says, for the first time ever, unless you get a special exception, only one house per square mile where disabled people needing help can live. Next I have have a mental problem will I have to wear a special armband marked "Blod" like the nazis required in concentration camps (translated to "feeble-minded") or fly an identifying flag outside my home?

None of these are minor adjustments.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune



That would likely be illegal;

What law says this?

quote:to build out in the middle of nowhere, far away from the amenities of civilization.

Its called have a bus route to that location if transportation is a issue or the people who run those facilities can bus those people there themselves. Instead of building these places in neighborhoods where the residents of such facilities might present problems.

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

No one said anything about quarantining these people, I said move them somewhere where they will not be a problem for neighbors. Tulsa has lots of areas that facility can be built at that doesn't present a problem for any of the  residents and businesses. If that institution really wants to help those people then they can do it at their own expense not that of the neighborhood residents.

[waterboy]

How did that work out with Hissom? Leper colonies? Poor farms? New Orleans had a section of town designated for bordellos.  There are other examples of past folly using your suggestions but these come to mind immediately.

It amazes me how some of the strongest supporters of individual rights, property rights and small government are perfectly happy to chuck it all when some group they don't like exercises those same rights. Then they want papa bear to chase off the intruders. I really don't like the idea of moving those who somehow differ from the status quo and then segregating them geographically from the rest of "us" so that we don't have to look at them or interact with them.

There is a group home no more than two blocks from my Maple Ridge home. It is one of the better kept homes around here and hardly anyone is aware its there. Meanwhile my neighbors' teenagers have cars parked all over the street, the local school parents ignore courtesy and parking laws when speeding to pick up their kids and one of my wealthy neighbors even parks his large commercial truck dangerously close to a busy intersection- one presumes for the advertising to be gained by doing so. Each of these transgressions can be dealt with in other ways than besieging my government to zone them out of here.

This is a nonexistent problem that government is being asked to fix. It seems to entail revenge, fear, and conformity and their relationship to property value. I'm surprised it has gotten this far with so many other more worthy subjects.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'm surprised it has gotten this far with so many other more worthy subjects.

Yeah, like everything I write about. [8D]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'm surprised it has gotten this far with so many other more worthy subjects.

Yeah, like everything I write about. [8D]

Well, I meant as a topic of concern for the city. TN posters will grind out 10 pages over a discussion of sushi restaurants.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk


Yes, but even after the code was passed, courts have continued to recognize common law marriage.  Why, I don't know.

I haven't been able to find a case involving a common law marriage purportedly entered into after 1997. All the ones I've seen deal with common law marriages that began before that date, which presumably wouldn't be affected by any change in law unless the law specifically stated that it applied to previous common law marriages.

If you have any references, I'd love to see them.

[IloveTTown]

I find it interesting that so many references have been made to White City and MHAT with regard to this topic.  I am a resident of White City and a very active member of Who Owns Tulsa, and I can say that we absolutely had nothing to do with this matter.  If anyone cares to research it, the issue began in 2007 and has been championed by Councilor Westcott.  That was long before the 10 N. Yale issue came up, and Westcott is not in our district.  As a matter of fact, WOT has not made any stand on this proposal one way or the other.  So please don't misconstrue this as revenge on the MHAT.  I don't think they were the target at all when Councilor Westcott began his work on this issue, and it certainly didn't have anything to do with 10 N. Yale. 

[Neptune]

Then maybe it's just really bad timing.  Maybe everyone for this, is using "White City"/MHAT as an excuse.  Maybe it has nothing to do at all with the neighborhood/group trying to recall it's councilor for no apparent reason.

I doubt it.  Even if that's technically correct: White City and Who Owns Tulsa got people riled up in a no-win situation.  When they lost, those people headed straight for this issue. 

Zoning isn't addressed by the City Council, just because 5 people want it that way.  If you want something addressed; you need money or a large group.  I'm not seeing money in this.  I'm seeing plenty of angry mob types lurking about.

[jamesrage]

How did that work out with Hissom? Leper colonies? Poor farms?

This is issue is no different than residents not wanting a prison,toxic waste facility,ten story apartment,project housing or any other facility near where they live. This comparison to leprosy colonies, Hissom and other such things is idiotic and purely meant to try to demonize anyone who might oppose such a facility near where they live. It is not unreasonable to demand that such facilities be built where they have the least amount of impact and worry on the residents.

New Orleans had a section of town designated for bordellos. 

So you would want a bordello next to your child's school,how about a home for convicted child molesters next to your child' school? How about a next door neighbor open up a soup kitchen right next your house?After this zoning and demanding that certain places be built in other parts of town is just some fascist attempt to segregate and quarantine.

[waterboy]

Just reread my post James after you cool down. You drew the wrong conclusions and the wrong comparisons...unless you think the mentally impaired are just like toxic dumps, prisons and such.

[jamesrage]

Just reread my post James after you cool down. You drew the wrong conclusions and the wrong comparisons...unless you think the mentally impaired are just like toxic dumps, prisons and such.

I never compared crazy people toxic waste dumps, I just stated this issue is no different than not wanting other types of facilities near where you live.

[waterboy]

Nor did I suggest bordellos should be allowed.

People can complain about new developments and use available legal channels to try to change them or modify them. They were available in this instance. Zoning laws are usually the preferred method of protecting values. The idea to move anything or anyone who is different to areas away from everyone else is just not viable in this country with our moral covenants. Appreciate your fine use of name calling though. Suits you.