- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: State Supreme Court: EBR city-parish A-1 zoning is constitutional
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:10 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:10 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Exactly. Nothing vague there.
A stepmother with two step kids may also break the law if the biological father is not living there.
They would be related by marriage.
0
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:12 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
They would be related by marriage.
Would they? I think that's debatable. What about the foster case?
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:18 pm to Mickey Goldmill
What reasoning, specifically, used by the court do you disagree with?
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:20 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Why is someone being married to a child's biological parent debatable if they are related by marriage? I'm not following your logic at all.
Would they? I think that's debatable.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What reasoning, specifically, used by the court do you disagree with?
This post was edited on 5/8/14 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:27 pm to swampdawg
quote:
let the section 8 housing begin
While I agree that Steve Myers is a dirtbag, him putting Section 8 housing in Southdowns is hilarious revenge after all the legal wrangling they put him through. When all else fails, use your opponents ideals against them.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:30 pm to Lloyd Christmas
He would just devalue his own property value if he did that. He's probably enough of a vengeful a-hole to do it but it will be expensive revenge.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What reasoning, specifically, used by the court do you disagree with?
I don't think the court properly addressed the invasion of privacy concerns. They focused too much on the FHA regulation portion on not on the personal invasion of privacy that comes along with this ordinance. I think this ordinance restricts status rather than actions. I think it restricts the ability to have foster children. I think there is a question regarding siblings living together with a third non-related party and whether they are in line with the ordinance.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 5:56 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I think there is a question regarding siblings living together with a third non-related party and whether they are in line with the ordinance.
Siblings are related by blood, right? So siblings living with a third unrelated person is okay, right? There would be fewer than 3 unrelated persons in the residence in that case.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:00 pm to LSURussian
It says not more than 2 living by joint agreement on a cost sharing basis. Wouldn't that be 3 if the unrelated person has agreements with both siblings?
ETA: why do y'all keep ignoring the foster child issue here?
ETA: why do y'all keep ignoring the foster child issue here?
This post was edited on 5/8/14 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
He would just devalue his own property value if he did that. He's probably enough of a vengeful a-hole to do it but it will be expensive revenge.
Ha, but if he thinks like me, he would do it and it would be totally worth it.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:22 pm to Lloyd Christmas
Err OK
So what is Myers ' motivation?
Is he in it to make big money or is he in it as a crusader for students' rights of is he just out to get Southdowns ?
If he's in it for profit, he will make a business decision. If he's in it to push an agenda or to get back at Southdowns then he isn't what I think he is.
So what is Myers ' motivation?
Is he in it to make big money or is he in it as a crusader for students' rights of is he just out to get Southdowns ?
If he's in it for profit, he will make a business decision. If he's in it to push an agenda or to get back at Southdowns then he isn't what I think he is.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:31 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
ETA: why do y'all keep ignoring the foster child issue here?
Has there been a single case of a household in BR with foster children being cited for violating the single family ordinance? I don't know of even one time that has happened.
Until or unless it happens, it's a moot point.
On your other question: no.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:34 pm to LSURussian
In the court of public opinion the city would lose if they went after a couple with a foster child.
Like you pointed out, they haven't done that and I can't see them even wanting to do something that unpopular.
Like you pointed out, they haven't done that and I can't see them even wanting to do something that unpopular.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:37 pm to doubleb
That's the law right now though. No it hasn't been brought to court on that specific situation but the law is preventing those foster situations from happening.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:37 pm to Mickey Goldmill
They didn't consider that because of the standing issue.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:40 pm to BBONDS25
I understand that. Doesn't make what I said incorrect regarding the law itself. There's also something to be said about forcing a family to break the law before being able to have standing.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:49 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
the law is preventing those foster situations from happening.
Link? Where and when has that happened? Do you know for a fact that a foster child, for the purposes of this ordinance, has not been included to fit the "adoption" part of "family"?
Besides if a married couple has 3 foster children, they are within the allowance of the law since there are no more than 3 unrelated persons living there. And if the foster children are related to each other, which happens frequently when children are taken away from their parents by a court, there can be more than 3 foster children in a house and still be within the law.
Now if they have a dozen foster children in a house, I'm not sure they should be allowed to do that anyway.
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:50 pm to doubleb
quote:
just out to get Southdowns
I think early on, he was just a guy making a living renting houses.
Now I think he wants to ruin Southdowns after the harassment he has received from the neighborhood.
I may be wrong, just guessing
Posted on 5/8/14 at 6:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
If I were on that jury, I would tell you they are a family and no law is being broken.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News