quote:
Originally posted by thomaswayne0907:
really though, a restriction on how many people can live in a house is absolute rubbish..if i pay 70,000 for a house, then its mine, and if i want to have 30 roommates then i feel as i have a right to do so. increase in accidents? hmm..look at apartment complexes, they dont have more accidents in and around them where 100's of people live. the underlying message of that article as to do with illegal aliens, because i bet if it was white people in the houses, most people wouldnt care.
"[R]ubbish," you say!! Well, thomaswayne, ole son, I daresay you will find few who agree with you on this other than perhaps some unreconstructed rednecks. When a subdivision is zoned as "SINGLE-FAMILY Residential," it is clearly intended that the dwelling in that subdivision be occupied by a single family, and NOT by a ragtag bunch of mostly single persons temporarily in the area for employment and mostly unrelated to one another. Most subdivisions developed in the last 30 years or so have "covenants, conditions and restrictions" that enforce this expectation. So you go ahead and load up that "70,000" house with 20 or more renters and let them park their rustbucket cars all over the driveway and the lawn and see how long the neighbors are willing to put up with that without invoking the processes spelled out in either local ordinances or in the covenants, conditions, etc. tied to the property or to both these legal control mechanisms.
One more thing, thomaswayne--Are you perhaps a landlord to one or more assemblages of persons living elbow to kneebone in one or more rental properties of your own? I ask that because I find it hard to understand why anyone not standing to gain from such an arrangement could find any real reason to defend it.