# Manasses VA passes anti-hispanic legislation



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

They've redefined family so that many people who reside with extended family or roommate situations would be illegal and could be evicted. It's absurd. I don't know what to do but this is really enraging! According to the new laws you can't live with an aunt/uncle/cousin/neice/nephew or more than one legally unrelated person. This is to target Hispanics and get them out of the city. That's the whole point of the law. I'm going to puke!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

I have (a year ago) been in violation of these new housing codes passed aimed at outing 'illegal immigrants' and I am a very legal resident of the US. I am livid. This is so racist and classist I can't believe it:


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

(bump)


----------



## anjelika (May 16, 2004)

That is ridiculous and I can't believe policies like that can be made legal. How horrifying!

Is there anything that can be done? Are people aware of the issue?


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

Thanks for posting that. I had no idea they could legislate who could live in a home like that, it's very frightening!


----------



## JenniferH (Feb 24, 2005)

How can that even be LEGAL? I don't think it's just aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants, but it will also keep unmarried groups of people from living together. Whether they be roommates or lovers, it would be "illegal" because they aren't immediate family.

What a crock of shite.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

That is so horrible! I hope someone sues. As a landlord myself, I would NEVER impose this on people. This is crazy. Here in Washington, we have rules about how many people can live in an apartment per the size, but that's all and I am not sure if that applies to houses. I know it certainly doesn't if you own a house. This law is racist, and even so, the government has no right to step into your house and tell you who you can and cannot have living there! What a crock!


----------



## mommystinch (May 18, 2004)

This is just sick! I thought Baltimore was bad. The law in Baltimore is that there can't be more than 3 unrelated people living in a house. I can't believe laws are actually made to tell people who they can live with. Now, if they want to say that a one bedroom house can't have 20 people living in it, then fine... that could be seen as a public health issue. But, who cares if three siblings want their families to live together? Or what about single parents or college kids that need help spliting housing costs. The list could go on and on about how this will hurt so many different people from different backgrounds and situations.


----------



## pumpkinsmama (Aug 20, 2005)

:




























:







Wow!


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

What??? What about boarders? What about foster kids? What about friends staying with you while they're going through a divorce? Foreign exchange students? Good grief.


----------



## MelMel (Nov 9, 2002)

It makes sooooooo much sense for people to live together from all environmental, social, economic, and safety aspects....i wonder why the goverment would discourage it??? oh wait, individual dwellers use more utilites and buy more 'stuff' so its better for the local economy? more housing means more taxes? either way, its crooked..and its not the government working for the people, its government working for big business, big interests...and its own interests.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I'm also a landlord and can't fathom that it can be legal. But where I am, I can't even limit how many people are living in my apartments - fire code or not. If 25 people are living in a 1 bedroom, I can't stop it, even though my insurance would be voided.

Wonder how this will fly if it gets challenged outside Manassas...


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Hey maybe we should propose that all those living in the mcmansions in other parts of Manasses should have a minimum occupancy for the # of bedrooms i.e. no 10,000 sf homes with 3 people living in them? Just kidding but it would be environmentally contientious.


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

This law was in place in a college town near where I used to live. It was not aimed at hispanics, but college students who rented large houses together that more often than not became "party houses" and lowered the value of the neighborhood. Every apartment I have lived in has had the limit that you could have two people per bedroom plus one extra person. I think this is fine for a landlord to set a limit. However, you own a home you should be able to have as many people living in it as you want, as long as the noise level is appropriate and you don't park in front of neighbors' houses.

ETA: That law is total crap but doesn't surprise me at ALL for this area, unfortunately.


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophmama*
Hey maybe we should propose that all those living in the mcmansions in other parts of Manasses should have a minimum occupancy for the # of bedrooms i.e. no 10,000 sf homes with 3 people living in them? Just kidding but it would be environmentally contientious.

Now there is an idea!


----------



## celestialdreamer (Nov 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinsmama*














:




























:







Wow!

My thoughts exactly!


----------



## mackenziesmama (May 24, 2005)

Unbelievable! HOW can this even be legal? Here's to hoping it will be ruled unconstitutional or something. I just can't believe this.

Thanks for posting this and bringing it to everyone's attention.

Just a side thought, what is the race of the person in charge of this new "law"?


----------



## m9m9m9 (Jun 13, 2005)

Most likley they are targeting the growing Hispanic population. There seems to be a lot of push back from communities further out on this than those closer to Washington (the situation in Herndon with the day laborers comes to mind). The same issue came up in Fairfax County a couple years ago and one of the council people actually proposed a law that said you could only sleep in a bedroom. It was aimed at preventing have boarders or extra family and them sleeping on the couch, etc. The idea just reeked of supidity.

Unfortunately, I do somewhat sympathize with homeowners as we have a few homes in my neighborhood with the same type of situation. What tends to happen is each adult has a car and those cars need parking and in some neighborhoods, especially townhouse developments, parking is at a premium. So if your neighbor has 5 adults with 5 cars they are much more likely to get a parking space near the home then if you have say 2 cars or 1 car. There is also noise issue when you that many people in a townhouse or an apartment.

The worse part is it will probablly take quite a while for this law to be challenged in court as those who enforce such laws will no doubt take advantage of people's fear ("I will prosecute you if you lie") and language barriers to make sure they comply and don't challenge the situation.

Maggie


----------



## sebarnes (Feb 2, 2005)

:


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

Nursing homes??????? Wouldn't be illegal to have them?

Umm, this is stupid.. What if my bil and sil died and I took in my nephews? I would be breaking the law.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

OMf'inG. I can not believe the extremes people will go through to get minorities out of their communities. I thought this was the 21st century?

A state of emergency????? Seriously, they wanted to use Homeland Security funds to "fix" this "problem"? Their complaints are about parking, for god's sake. They wanted to use Homeland Security money to fix parking annoyances and to help them avoid having to put ESL programs in the schools?

I wonder... they say "two degrees" of relation. Well, what about the a grandparent sharing his or her house with four grandchildren, two each from two different sets of parents? Those grandchildren are seperated from each other by three degrees; but each are seperate from their grandparent by only two degrees. Will they focus on the fact that they are all closely related to the grandparent, or will they only focus on the "unrelated" nature of the cousins?

The most offensive part is, such family living arrangements are *so* traditional. Yes, even Anglo-Americans have to admit that, historically, their ancestors lived in large family groups. In most of the rest of the world, people still do. This just totally prevents people from conducting their family lives in ways that are traditional, financially sound, emotionally meaningful and perfectly reasonable.


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

If parking is *really* the issue, all a neighborhood would have to do is allocate a certain # of parking spots for each home. The rest would have to find spaces on side streets or whatever. There are a lot of neighborhoods that already do this and it works fine. No need to boot people out of their homes.


----------



## sophmama (Sep 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrettyBird*
If parking is *really* the issue, all a neighborhood would have to do is allocate a certain # of parking spots for each home. The rest would have to find spaces on side streets or whatever. There are a lot of neighborhoods that already do this and it works fine. No need to boot people out of their homes.

Yes this is what has been the case in several places I've lived and it seems to be a fair solution for everyone. If you want to have 5 cars for a house that only has parking room for 2, then 3 of them are going to have to park at the end of the street and walk or whatever rather than make the rest of the neighborhood accommodate you. Neighborhood codes can take care of those issues rather than dictating who can /can't live somewhere.

In an age where we are moving more toward 'urban tribes' and not so much the nuclear family anyways, what's the point of trying to legislate who is and isn't 'family' really anyways. It's ridiculous. Some people don't speak to any of their blood relationships and have tight knit realtionships with 'live-in' significant others and friends. No one has the right to decide that blood should have preference over that. It's absurd.

BTW - there is a subsequent article that came out saying the ACLU is all over this thing - I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Yeah - the legalitly of this amazes me...wow.


----------



## m9m9m9 (Jun 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrettyBird*
If parking is *really* the issue, all a neighborhood would have to do is allocate a certain # of parking spots for each home. The rest would have to find spaces on side streets or whatever. There are a lot of neighborhoods that already do this and it works fine. No need to boot people out of their homes.

Well, I don't know how much parking was part of passing this law - I am guessing very little as I think racism played a bigger part.

BUT the parking issue is a big deal around here because most of the townhouse developments as well as some condo and apartments have very limited parking - one reserved space per home sometimes. So if your neighbor has 5 cars and they get one reserved space and then their 4 cars take up unreserved spaces but there are only 20 spaces althogether and there are 10 houses then you have a problem. Also, some of the side streets may not be that close to your home or may limit parking and walking with a ton of groceries and a baby to your house may not be easy or coming home late at night, or bad weather. One tends to get resentful of neighbors who are using more than their fair share of parking. Now, I don't think the answer is to kick people out but probably for the neighborhood association to work out a more feasible parking solution.

I find it horrible that they wanted a "state of emergency" declared. I swear people think the "deep south" is bad in terms of racism and politics but sometimes I think VA itself is so much worse. We passes the dumbest laws and they are always slanted towards denying some group of people something.

Maggie


----------



## ashleyhaugh (Jun 23, 2005)

wow.... i would have liked to see them come to my house when it was me, dh (boyfriend at the time) his brother, his brothers ex girlfriend, and her 2 kids (i was my bils, 1 wasnt) and my lil sis all in my 2 br 1000sf apt









this is one of the most stupid laws ive seen


----------



## Natsuki (May 4, 2004)

What a terrible, discriminatory law! I hope it gets struck down in court.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

That's disturbing. I'm from Manassas, and my sister lived in Manassas with her boyfriend and 6 children. Her next door neighbor didn't like her, so she called her and reported her for running an illegal daycare. She was investigated and told she could stay in the townhouse if she changed rooms with her children.

Now she lives in Gainesville in an apartment complex with her boyfriend, daughter, son and granddaughter. When they found out her daughter was pregnant with a second child, they told her she had to move out or move to a bigger apartment. So she applied for a bigger apartment, but it was a non-refundable application fee of $250 and she wasn't guaranteed to get the apartment. She did get it, thankfully, but her move out day was the same day as her daughter's scheduled c-section.

Housing sucks in the NoVa area these days. It more or less sucks everywhere, but it's gone up so much in the past 5 years, and wages sure as heck haven't. How the heck are people supposed to live?


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

Just thought you all should know, I heard on the local radio that this law had been struck down. I am on my parents very slow computer right now or I would look for a link. But it sounded like very good news!!


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrettyBird*
Just thought you all should know, I heard on the local radio that this law had been struck down. I am on my parents very slow computer right now or I would look for a link. But it sounded like very good news!!









Oh thank goodness. I thought it would only be a matter of time before this law was stuck down. They had no business even thinking about making it. While I understand making laws about how many people can live in apartments and such to prevent overcrowding, a private home is entirely another matter, and not a matter for lawmakers to ever considering trying to step into.

The truth is I avoided this thread because it the very audacity of some people that think they can step into the intimate places of peoples lives is just maddening to me. It truly surprises me everyday, especially in today's world, where personal and private information about someone is a little as a keyboard click away in some cases; I know this, cause I run credit checks on people everyday, legally with their consent, but still. It is a scary thing when governmental agencies try to strong-arm happenings in people's private homes. Scary things.


----------



## Danelle78 (Dec 29, 2005)

Land of the Free, my ass.


----------



## MountainLaurel (Dec 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
OMf'inG. I can not believe the extremes people will go through to get minorities out of their communities. I thought this was the 21st century?

A state of emergency????? Seriously, they wanted to use Homeland Security funds to "fix" this "problem"? Their complaints are about parking, for god's sake. They wanted to use Homeland Security money to fix parking annoyances and to help them avoid having to put ESL programs in the schools?

I wonder... they say "two degrees" of relation. Well, what about the a grandparent sharing his or her house with four grandchildren, two each from two different sets of parents? Those grandchildren are seperated from each other by three degrees; but each are seperate from their grandparent by only two degrees. Will they focus on the fact that they are all closely related to the grandparent, or will they only focus on the "unrelated" nature of the cousins?

The most offensive part is, such family living arrangements are *so* traditional. Yes, even Anglo-Americans have to admit that, historically, their ancestors lived in large family groups. In most of the rest of the world, people still do. This just totally prevents people from conducting their family lives in ways that are traditional, financially sound, emotionally meaningful and perfectly reasonable.

That's the thing about this that kills me. Most people in this country used to live in such extended families. When my mom was a child, she and her cousins went from one house to another all the time in their town in WV. They might live with their grandparents for a few months while there was a new baby or they weren't getting along with their parents, or go stay with another aunt and uncle after a parent's death. My mom lived on her grandparents' farm most summers. My grandmother had my brother's best friend living with her for a time after he became emancipated from his abusive father. All of that would be illegal under this bill.

And in the Post article, the case mentioned in the intro involved 7 people living in a 5-BEDROOM house. Not overcrowded at all, and still under the limits for a home of that size. Note that the police and the housing board are not enforcing this across the board: They are only responding to complaints, so you could have one family at one house violating the law and another next door that is a less egregious case, but if the latter gets reported, only that family will be affected.

On the bright side, this law has since been repealed on the basis of complaints from the community.


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

i just don't see how it can be enforced. are house raids going to be made. that rule would never fly here. there is no way .


----------



## BethSLP (Mar 27, 2005)

I don't know the details of this, but are you sure its not a zoning thing?

I know in Austin, I lived in an efficiency apt that was 425 sq. feet. I had neighbors in the complex with the same size apt. and at least 6 people living there. That violated the lease and safety codes really. They always had tons of people in and out, laundry hanging everywhere outside, etc. It definetly brought down the desirability of the apt. complex. Call me a snob if you want.

I have heard of this law all over in different neighborhoods opposite zoning laws. We had a buddhist center in Friendswood, Texas (notoriously Christian) that was a residential home. We lived there for years and no one knew. It was an enormous house with a huge yard and driveway. 5roommates lived there (all different family names). When there was an article in the local paper about us, suddenly the homeowner's association had a million complaints (one of which was the rule about no more than two family names per household). It sucked for us, but I can kind of understand where such rules come from. In our case, it was abused for other reasons (religious intolerance), as it was clear that no one had any clue until the article.

Just as a zoning law or homeowner's association can dictate how your home is maintained, mowed, house painted, etc. I think they also have a right to make rules about just how many people can cram into one space. Esp. if it affects the traffic, parking, home value, etc. surrounding the place.

XOXO
Beth


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

That's insane. I think if there is enough bedrooms for everyone, then it shouldn't matter how many people are living there.

I can understand about the parking though. I lived in an area where a lot of the homes had been turned into little apts. You can imagine the lack of parking and sometimes I would have to park as far as 2 blocks from my house.


----------



## PrettyBird (Jun 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BethSLP*
I don't know the details of this, but are you sure its not a zoning thing?

I know in Austin, I lived in an efficiency apt that was 425 sq. feet. I had neighbors in the complex with the same size apt. and at least 6 people living there. That violated the lease and safety codes really. They always had tons of people in and out, laundry hanging everywhere outside, etc. It definetly brought down the desirability of the apt. complex. Call me a snob if you want.

I have heard of this law all over in different neighborhoods opposite zoning laws. We had a buddhist center in Friendswood, Texas (notoriously Christian) that was a residential home. We lived there for years and no one knew. It was an enormous house with a huge yard and driveway. 5roommates lived there (all different family names). When there was an article in the local paper about us, suddenly the homeowner's association had a million complaints (one of which was the rule about no more than two family names per household). It sucked for us, but I can kind of understand where such rules come from. In our case, it was abused for other reasons (religious intolerance), as it was clear that no one had any clue until the article.

Just as a zoning law or homeowner's association can dictate how your home is maintained, mowed, house painted, etc. I think they also have a right to make rules about just how many people can cram into one space. Esp. if it affects the traffic, parking, home value, etc. surrounding the place.

XOXO
Beth

The rule wasn't about the number of people, it was about how they re-defined family so that extended family could not live together.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I can see both sides.

As a landlord of twenty-one years experience in CA, I agree with it. The rule here in LA is that there are to be no more than two persons to a bedroom. So, a three bedroom house should have no more than six persons. No one seems to be enforcing this law, however. I have whined and complained about the tenant family of seven I had in my rental with four bedrooms who tried to move in four people and proceeded to build a room on to my house.









Here in LA, there are people BUYING homes and the trust deeds look like petitions. Most of the homes are funded by FHA (taxpayers) and there are real estate agencies that sell only to the Hispanic Community which is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and HUD; there is to be no discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin in housing in the sales or in the rent thereof. If a house has three bedrooms, then three families move buy the house with FHA funds and move in. That means that if a family is a mother/father/sister/brother and three families buy the three bedroom house, there are twelve persons living in a house that own it; that is actually twice the allowed occupancy by law. There is alot of wear and tear on the entire building with so many people in it. Furthermore, if property taxes fund the schools, then there is not enough revenue being made from the tax base to fund the children from that living arrangement or to pay for the other community services funded by property taxes.

I suppose the federal government can say that they are using Homeland Security guidelines to see who is in this country and who is not, but I doubt that they will dare do that.

OTOH, I do know that when I worked civil service for the City in the Library, I was not any allowed time off at all to care for my dying grandparents, since according to the Federal Family Leave Act, a grandparent is not an immediate relative. Therefore the Federal Government now has a say in defining who is an immediate family member and who is not, and who you can care for and who you cannot.

The old slippery slope gets in the way everytime.

If a grandparent or nephew is not a federally approved "immediate family member" then they cannot live in the home if the federal and state governments are having a say in these matters, especially if they are paying the rent.

BTW, is the rent being paid in part by the Federal government or the State?


----------



## ustasmom (Jan 12, 2004)

It seems to be quite the trend in this part of Virginia. It gets better, though.

One county in Virginia is looking to cap the number of children that you can have.

Clarke County is pushing through a household limit of 8 people.









Some board members thought that it should be 12 people, but they were vetoed and the number was lowered to 8. This isn't just extended family. It is just family.

They are saying that there will be water supply issues in 10 years. Well, then maybe they should stop putting subdivisions with .15 acre lots everywhere.

I can't imagine that this can pass since it is government capping the number of children that you can have. I know several families that have more than 6 children, myself included.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JenniferH*
How can that even be LEGAL? .

As I said in my post, if you let the federal government define the family members you can take time from work to care for, then the federal government can tell you which family members can live in a housing unit. I know that does not make sense, but the government does not care.

You need to know once the government sticks its nose into your business, there is no getting it out.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jannan*
i just don't see how it can be enforced. are house raids going to be made. that rule would never fly here. there is no way .

I live in Burbank and I had worked for the school district. The school district actually sent district administrators to the homes of students who were believed to be "using an address" to go to the Burbank Unified School District.

The school district administrators would drive to the suspected address at 5-6 a.m. in the morning or after school until 6:00 p.m. to be sure the children were there, living there.

Often the school administrator asked to go into the home to see if there were actually clothes hanging in a closet for the child and a desk where they can study and a bed where they sleep.

How do I know this? As a teacher I was responsible for reporting any child suspected of not living in the district and as an aide I was responsible for recording these suspicions and any investigation reports in the student's cumulative reports.

Big Brother giveth and he taketh away. Mostly, he taketh away. (Your rights)


----------



## mamaGjr (Jul 30, 2004)

barf barf barf barf barf
can't find the smiley

this makes me sick! i used to live there over 5 yrs ago and now i live in a city ..had to get the f out of bum f...

i am sure my ex bf is thrilled by this . my dp now is latino!









How freaking lame ..i don't even have anything smart to say ....
that place was so bunk

only wt worked at the 7 /11 's they are probably all mad that someone else is willing to work for less ...yes i am being so UN PC right now ...i just know from experience and i can't compose myself right now

back later with something constructive to post!


----------



## Kaitnbugsmom (Dec 4, 2003)

I'd be barely within the code. Currently myself, my ex dh, my h and our three kids {two with ex, one with h} "live" in our apartment. We are getting a 5 bedroom supposedly/prayerfully/hopefully in a week or so, but right now are in a 2 bedroom.. ex sleeps on an airbed in the living room, or occasionaly at a friend's house. He's been here more often than not this winter since he's been so sick....


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaGjr*
only wt worked at the 7 /11 's they are probably all mad that someone else is willing to work for less ...

What do you mean by this?


----------

