The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In a twist of irony regarding those concerned over this issue, the Tulsa World offered an editorial today regarding a proposed ordinance change that would place restrictions on group homes...limiting the number of residents and their distance from eachother.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=211&articleid=20090222_211_G1_Anewzo970718&allcom=1#commentform

I sat in on this Council meeting (02/12) and when this item came up and I saw the five opponents stand before the Council, the sheer irony struck me like a freight train.

Michael Brose, of the Mental Health Association of Tulsa, stood there before the Council and asked for more time.  He stated that the MHAT didn't have sufficient notice or time to adequately understand the meaning of the proposed ordinance or its impact on the mental health community. I sat there thinking "what hipocracy for him to stand there demanding that"...he certainly didn't advocate for that on behalf of the White City residents who also claimed to not have sufficient notice or understanding of what was going to be placed behind their homes.  Those residents wanted exactly what Mr. Brose wants now...time and dialogue among the effected parties.

Goes to show that the MHAT's and the THA's mission includes no one but themselves.

The Council should have moved to pass this on principle alone given MHAT's past behavior.  Why should this have been treated any different?

Did the residents of White City request a delay when their case was heard before the city council?

Apparently yes, as well as requested meetings with MHAT and THA.

Perhaps I missed it -- but in the articles I read there was no reference to the issues that were truly being brought to light. Yes the ordinance restricts the number of persons living together. Wescott stated that the group homes owned by certain companies are a problem. These homes are for drug and alcohol issues. Upwards of 11 persons have been reported living in homes of less than 2500 sq feet. The issue out south - there are several homes within a short distance of each other and when you have nearly 22 cars parked up and down the street it becomes a tad bit of a nuisance.

It is unfortunate that group homes refer to those with true disabilities and addicts. They are lumped together and this does a diservice to many people.

Instead the media focus is that any disagreement with any housing is based on not being fair to persons with physical or mental disabilities - the sort that comes from birth or injury. That was not the issue.

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

---

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

I always dreamed about putting my mother in a house like the "Golden Girls" TV show. I know that show only had four women living together, but my mother has lots of friends.

I am against going from six down to four. With four, you can't even have a full bowling team.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

---

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

---

The rules apply to all group homes, regardless of purpose. As I understand it, shelters are classified as group homes as they are unrelated persons living together and receiving services.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

---

I don't think the city councilors know how many "group homes" they would effect.  Not that they particularly care.  I'd suspect most "group homes" aren't full of consistent voters.

This whole "White City", "let's zone them out of existence" BS, needs to be called what it is.  A bunch of angry, ignorant people, who obviously didn't care how the city works, until it pissed them off.  Perhaps that's the definition of model citizen, but I have my doubts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

---

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

---

The rules apply to all group homes, regardless of purpose. As I understand it, shelters are classified as group homes as they are unrelated persons living together and receiving services.

---

The new provision does not apply to a blanket "group home" but specifically is limited to neighborhood group homes and community group homes.  In fact, shelters are already defined differently, and emergency & protective shelters have had spacing requirements for years under 1202 (C).  

The new provision defines community group homes as those people with a disability.  While neighborhood group home doesn't mention disabilities, it can be inferred from the language that that is what is intended.  Both of these are classified as use unit No. 8, which means that, except in single family zoned areas, they can go in by right.  The issue with the new provision is simply when they can go into single family residential areas.

Protective shelters, on the other hand, are use unit 2, which means they need a special exception to go in anywhere.  

IMO, we shouldn't have so many restrictions on protective shelters.  

Yet, you don't know how many "group homes" and of what type are already in single-family residential neighborhoods.  You don't know how many "shelters" exist for battered women, and how many "group homes" exist in single-family residential for battered women.  If it has battered women in it, is it automatically a "shelter."  If so, how is that gonna fly when you try to enforce this on everyone else.  There are way more "group homes" in single-family residential, than anyone knows.

Just by reducing the number of people from 8 to 4;  Several hundred people, maybe thousands, will lose their place of residency.  Unless the plan is to "grandfather" them in.

This is punitive.  It has been from the beginning.  Those "zoning" people that came together after "White City", they don't know what they're doing.  Our councilors should have enough knowledge to be able to turn this down.

One other thing, the size of a group home is usually determined by space vs cost.  Someone, or some group, rents a house.  They determine it can safely and adequately house X number of people.  That's the limit of the house, and it won't be exceeded.  

Typically the place has to provide a certain amount of spacial comfort, but cost is a serious factor.  Since in many cases, the people that pay the rent on the house, are the residents.  The folks could be paying $1200 a month in rent, spread out over 8 people.  What happens when you double their rent from $150 to $300 a month?  They abandon the house, because 4 people paying $600 doesn't sound bad at all.

Many group homes will eventually move. Mostly to smaller houses, and to poorer areas.  Look out White City right?

Wrong!  Because we're gonna stop all that business by restricting where new "group homes" can pop up.  Yeah, sure, White City might get one, but there is likely no way the 8-resident houses can be replaced with 4-resident houses.  Guess we'll have to send them to the countryside, along with the sex-offenders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk


The new provision does not apply to a blanket "group home" but specifically is limited to neighborhood group homes and community group homes.  In fact, shelters are already defined differently, and emergency & protective shelters have had spacing requirements for years under 1202 (C).  

The new provision defines community group homes as those people with a disability.  While neighborhood group home doesn't mention disabilities, it can be inferred from the language that that is what is intended.  Both of these are classified as use unit No. 8, which means that, except in single family zoned areas, they can go in by right.  The issue with the new provision is simply when they can go into single family residential areas.

Protective shelters, on the other hand, are use unit 2, which means they need a special exception to go in anywhere.  

IMO, we shouldn't have so many restrictions on protective shelters.  

---

I would like to see some supporting documentation either way, because I've received a litany of emails saying that all group homes are effected; shelters, elderly, etc.

http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1202._

I'd kind of like to know too.  Under 1202(b), Emergency and Protective Shelters seemed to be grouped together with a lot of things including Transitional Living Centers, aka "group homes."

Ah, 1202(c).7

"To avoid clustering, detention/correctional, emergency and protective shelter, homeless center, residential treatment center and transitional living center shall not be located on a lot within 1/2 mile (2,620 feet) from any other lot containing such facilities. The Board of Adjustment, however, may as a special exception permit the clustering of such uses if determined that the location of such uses will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare."

The 1/2 mile restriction already seems to apply to some of the "group homes" I'm thinking of.  Still, changing from a max 8 to maximum 4 unrelated people; that will have serious consequences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I always dreamed about putting my mother in a house like the "Golden Girls" TV show. I know that show only had four women living together, but my mother has lots of friends.

I am against going from six down to four. With four, you can't even have a full bowling team.

---

I thought this was about a retirement complex for old groupies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neptune

http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1202._

I'd kind of like to know too.  Under 1202(b), Emergency and Protective Shelters seemed to be grouped together with a lot of things including Transitional Living Centers, aka "group homes."

Ah, 1202(c).7

"To avoid clustering, detention/correctional, emergency and protective shelter, homeless center, residential treatment center and transitional living center shall not be located on a lot within 1/2 mile (2,620 feet) from any other lot containing such facilities. The Board of Adjustment, however, may as a special exception permit the clustering of such uses if determined that the location of such uses will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare."

The 1/2 mile restriction already seems to apply to some of the "group homes" I'm thinking of.  Still, changing from a max 8 to maximum 4 unrelated people; that will have serious consequences.

---

FYI, though the original version had 4, the TMAPC recommended 6, which follows state law.  While there was some talk of going back to 4, I suspect that City Council will stick with 6.

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

---

Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neptune

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

---

Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

---

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

The hypocrisy of Neptune runs deep. The flatulent Gas Giant complains about "angry, ignorant people" and then jumps to conclusions in an angry, ignorant, tirade without even knowing what the ordinance does. Isn't it ironic? Gas Giant, indeed.

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.

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.

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.

---

Then you should venture a guess that the majority won't take time educating themselves on any changes.  Correct?

It's the same thing over and over again.  If a person doesn't have a clue about the laws in the first place, what qualifies that person to change them?  Is it the state of "being pissed off"?

Zoning, development, variances; they're all transparent.  It takes very little time to know exactly what is going on in your neighborhood, well ahead of time.  

quote:

---

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

---

Both.  It is absolutely absurd to be believe that every complaint should have merit.  It's also absurd to believe that politicians will do the right thing as opposed to scoring cheap points at someones expense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

The hypocrisy of Neptune runs deep. The flatulent Gas Giant complains about "angry, ignorant people" and then jumps to conclusions in an angry, ignorant, tirade without even knowing what the ordinance does. Isn't it ironic? Gas Giant, indeed.

---

I guarantee you I know what's going on in my hood.  All the developments.

If you don't know what is happening in your area, you choose that.  And you certainly can complain.  It doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant of your surrounding and how the city operates.  It doesn't change the fact that you all of the sudden decided to become citizen of Tulsa, as soon as you saw something you didn't like.

Having you on "their" side, makes me all the more comfortable about my position.  Still waiting on a heavy-weight (figuratively, though RM is welcome) to chime in.  Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neptune

Having you on "their" side, makes me all the more comfortable about my position.  Still waiting on a heavy-weight (figuratively, though RM is welcome) to chime in.  Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

---

Right back at ya, babe!

You already established the fact that you needed someone to explain this to you quite well when you spoke with such erroneous authority on the topic in your earlier angry, ignorant, rant. Your flatulence leaves behind gas giant sized skidmarks. They're kinda hard to miss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

You already established the fact that you needed someone to explain this to you quite well when you spoke with such erroneous authority on the topic in your earlier angry, ignorant, rant. Your flatulence leaves behind gas giant sized skidmarks. They're kinda hard to miss.

---

Another well thought out explanation there.

Anyone else?   Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

Or is this simply, as Double A, DowntownNow, and Limabean propose; revenge on MHAT?

I am slightly surprised that only pmcalk seems to have intelligent insight into this deal.  She's more on the technical side I imagine, which is great.  

If its so incredibly important to "get something done", someone should be able to explain why.  Something beyond "we didn't know, we're taking revenge."  

quote:

---

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

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neptune


Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

---

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

---

(http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif)

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neptune


Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

---

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

---

(http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif)

---

And you must be just the hot air inbetween... Thanks for chiming in[:X]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MDepr2007


And you must be just the hot air inbetween... Thanks for chiming in[:X]

---

You're welcome.

If you need a balloon filled, let me know.

Neptune misses the point myself and others made earlier in this thread. This is not a White City issue. White City residents did not formulate or petition the Council for this proposed ordinance change for group homes.

My comment in this thread regarded the irony which found MHAT and its supporters now asking the Council for more time to understand this ordinance and its potential impact. The irony is also present in the statement that Michael Brose made when he said MHAT had been unaware of the proposed ordinance change, althought it had been previously discussed at other Council committee meetings. Even Councilor Bynum addressed that topic, telling Mr. Brose that this had been an on-going issue and asking just how much time did Mr. Brose think was fair to wait on the issue.

Again, the irony I was alluding to is that MHAT's statements and requests for more time are the exact same things that the residents of White City sought when faced with the Council vote of the funding issue for the 10 N. Yale Project. Nothing more, nothing less. But at the time, MHAT, THA and Brose himself argued just because the residents of White City felt they hadnt been adequately informed of the pending issue and that they didnt understand it, was no reason to further delay a vote by the Council...now here they are asking for that courtesy...therein lies the irony.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DowntownNow

Neptune misses the point

---

Nope, got it.

quote:

---

The Council should have moved to pass this on principle alone given MHAT's past behavior. Why should this have been treated any different?

---

Two completely different things, yet the City Council should have moved to pass this, for the sake of revenge on MHAT.  Brilliant.

Any other brain-buster points on why this should pass?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DowntownNow

Neptune misses the point myself and others made earlier in this thread. This is not a White City issue. White City residents did not formulate or petition the Council for this proposed ordinance change for group homes.

My comment in this thread regarded the irony which found MHAT and its supporters now asking the Council for more time to understand this ordinance and its potential impact. The irony is also present in the statement that Michael Brose made when he said MHAT had been unaware of the proposed ordinance change, althought it had been previously discussed at other Council committee meetings. Even Councilor Bynum addressed that topic, telling Mr. Brose that this had been an on-going issue and asking just how much time did Mr. Brose think was fair to wait on the issue.

Again, the irony I was alluding to is that MHAT's statements and requests for more time are the exact same things that the residents of White City sought when faced with the Council vote of the funding issue for the 10 N. Yale Project. Nothing more, nothing less. But at the time, MHAT, THA and Brose himself argued just because the residents of White City felt they hadnt been adequately informed of the pending issue and that they didnt understand it, was no reason to further delay a vote by the Council...now here they are asking for that courtesy...therein lies the irony.

---

Maybe I'm wrong in my definition of irony but I don't see any...

Situation A: Party A is planning on building a structure on a single plot of land. Party B has no ability to approve or deny the request and is only aware due to a routine funding request, which they can't deny anyway.

Situation B: Party B is planning on making a city-wide change that could effect Party A as well as parties C-Z.

Fine, oh guru of irony.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Limabean

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

---

Trying to pass changes to zoning, with motives other than improving zoning. Does that qualify?

Seriously, my irony meter is broken.

No, but "good zoning" is an oxymoron..

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

No, but "good zoning" is an oxymoron..

---

Kind of like the proponents of this deal.  

Oh wait, you said "oxy."  My bad.

The whole group home formula is a recipe for trouble.  It is widely accepted among mental health professionals today as superior to the old large scale institutional facilities but I believe they are wrong.

Aren’t group homes usually staffed by people who are not licensed and who are paid low wages?  Without adequate supervision and oversight of staff – group homes are ripe for abuse.

Now there is also the issue of economic fairness.  Social services and businesses that produce environmental toxins tend to be situated in low income neighborhoods.  We understand why this happens but it’s not right.

I say it’s time for South Tulsa to shoulder her share of the burden and large scale facilities with licensed and well-paid staff providing state of the art social services should be built there.

So, now this is some kind of plebiscite on "group homes"?  Now, it's really not about zoning, it's about whether or not people like "group homes"?

It sounds ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is no one, not anyone, has been able to say what this is for; except to say that it's revenge on MHAT.  One of the strong, truly "good", Tulsa organizations.

http://www.mhat.org/

Oh, I'm the only person I've ever heard question the group home concept.  

Mental Health professionals have all had the Koolaid and don't question the wisdom of the group home thing.  

So I imagine the group homes will continue for another 20 years.  And I imagine they will continue to be placed in low-income communities that don't have the sophistication or money to resist them.

I don't expect much of anything will improve.

And I'll be the first to admit I don't understand all the detail or nuance in this thread.  I'm one of those people loaded down with basics like paying the mortgage and feeding the kitties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

And I'll be the first to admit I don't understand all the detail or nuance in this thread.

---

Literally, nobody knows.  Not I, nor a single proponents of this change.  Literally, nobody.

ANYBODY with a live-in helper will no longer meet the definition of a "family" but will be considered a "neighborhood group home" and will have to get the city's permission!! Yes, you read that right!!

The following is from the proposed ordinance:

Person with a live-in helper is not a family:
"Individuals not related...occupying a single dwelling unit for ...medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family"

They are considered a 'neighborhood group home':
"Neighborhood group home: A home for independent living with support...that...does not otherwise meet the definition of a 'family'..."

And they have to get city's permission because neighborhood group homes only allowed by special expection in residential areas!

And they can't be within 1/2 mile of anybody else with a live-in helper!!

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'd love to say you're wrong.  And on some technical aspects you might be.  Philosophically, I think you're dead on.  This is about punishing MHAT and "group homes" through zoning, just because MHAT got it's way once.

If that were my motive, I'd do my best to cover that up with a good-sounding lie.  No one is even trying.

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.

Does anyone know who promoted this zoning change and which if any city councilor championed it? Was the mayor behind this?

Sometimes who the sponsor of a zoning change is can speak volumes to the intent of the change.

Some neighborhood around 71st and Lewis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

Some neighborhood around 71st and Lewis.

---

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by disabled

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.

---

Interesting parsing you are doing there.  Look at the whole sentence:

Individuals not related by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site institutional education, training, supervision, medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family as defined herein

Granted, it would be helpful to define institutional care, but it is used elsewhere in the zoning code, and it is generally understood.  Under definitions already enacted, assisted living facilities is defined as living arrangements with residential, as opposed to institutional, type care.  The intent is to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, and prohibit institutional-styled living arrangements.  So you can homeschool your unrelated kids at your house; you cannot run an educational institution; you can have a live-in nurse; you cannot have a small hospital.

I'm not following your first paragraph, but both community group homes (which are already in the zoning code) and neighborhood group homes specifically exclude from their definition anyone that otherwise qualifies as a family.  So if you qualify as a family (if you have 6 or 4 less unrelated individuals), you cannot be a community of neighborhood group home.

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

---

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain.

---

Another reason this thing should run it's natural course, instead of, as the author of this thread proposes, pass it to smite MHAT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DowntownNow
 

The Council should have moved to pass this on principle alone given MHAT's past behavior.

---

I don't understand why people think zoning codes should be easy, or punitive.  I certainly don't believe that any persons half-baked idea should be added to zoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by disabled

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.

---

Interesting parsing you are doing there.  Look at the whole sentence:

Individuals not related by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a single dwelling unit for on-site institutional education, training, supervision, medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family as defined herein

Granted, it would be helpful to define institutional care, but it is used elsewhere in the zoning code, and it is generally understood.  Under definitions already enacted, assisted living facilities is defined as living arrangements with residential, as opposed to institutional, type care.  The intent is to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, and prohibit institutional-styled living arrangements.  So you can homeschool your unrelated kids at your house; you cannot run an educational institution; you can have a live-in nurse; you cannot have a small hospital.

I'm not following your first paragraph, but both community group homes (which are already in the zoning code) and neighborhood group homes specifically exclude from their definition anyone that otherwise qualifies as a family.  So if you qualify as a family (if you have 6 or 4 less unrelated individuals), you cannot be a community of neighborhood group home.

---

Even without the parsing, it is wholly unclear that the adjective "institutional" applies to anything beyond the word "education."  Regardless of one's view of the policy behind this ordinance, something this poorly drafted with the potential to affect literally thousands of Tulsa's most vulnerable citizens needs to retooled (or preferably ditched entirely).

You know, these days with expenses the way they are you will sometimes find a group of "roommates" living together in order to manage the expense.  In San Francisco it wasn't ununusual to find 6 or more unrelated middle class people sharing a flat.  Since Zillow characterizes Tulsa as "low-income with high-rents" that's probably the case here too.  Are roommates exempted?

I'm a supporter of the Mental Health Association here.  We gave them $300 last year.

Hometown
Proving that people who care about Tulsa actually DO more than just complain on the internet since 19(however)

I never complain.  



I'm just an overtly malicious person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

---

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

---

If it doesn't touch all group homes then I think it is discriminatory.

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.

---

The people need to be closer to services, etc.  When you don't have a car things like your location can make a big difference.  Places like this can really help people keep on their medications and that can improve their ability to hold jobs.  If you don't want anything built in your back yard then I suggest you move into a backyard with something already there!

Takeaways:

Our zoning code IS overly complex and incomprehensible...understandable only to a handful of lawyers who dedicate their lives to understanding and/or profiting from it. (There should at least be a "Cliff's notes version for the average citizen!)

Tulsa does not have enough transit options, and most of our zoning complaints/conflicts ultimately come down to traffic and parking!

Some folks won't let actual facts get in the way of a firmly held opinion.

Pmcaulk is a very patient human being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

---

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

---

Yes I did and with the digital billboard ordinance we didn't have near 100 posts trying to figure out what the subject of the ordinance was. Here we have a loose name "group home" and a laundry list of exceptions that aren't defined in the text of the proposal. It seems that for any instance where the proposal would be a horrible idea, there is just a suggestion that "somewhere those are excluded."

Come on, congress passed a law that that would've shut down every consignment store and craft show in the US but I'm supposed to trust that CoT fully thought this one out?

Welcome to Our Neighborhood! except for group homes, homes where anyone is disabled, apartments for the mentally ill, alternative schools, community gardens, any family of 4 with one other unrelated person or child, two co-habiting adults with 3 kids between them,....

The question isn't Who Owns Tulsa, but who owns your right to live where you want, and the answer, apparently, is your neighbors (or the board of adjustment, or your city council),but not you!

Welcome to the Neighborhood, Part 2

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8ie37mgxIXA/R1YcA_6HEcI/AAAAAAAACSE/eLdnpakdJ9M/S300/scram.jpg

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'd just like to say that if it is this hard to understand or explain, then someone needs to start over. This is going to the city council. The same city council that includes people who thinks allowing communities to plant gardens will bring junkyards to the area.

---

Our entire zoning code is hard to explain. I'm curious if you had any idea how many people were legally allowed to live in your house before this came up?  Did you read the Digital billboard ordinance before it passed, and ask the same questions of that change?  When you start with something incredibly complicated, changing it is incredibly complicated as well.

Keeps the lawyers in business....

---

Yes I did and with the digital billboard ordinance we didn't have near 100 posts trying to figure out what the subject of the ordinance was. Here we have a loose name "group home" and a laundry list of exceptions that aren't defined in the text of the proposal. It seems that for any instance where the proposal would be a horrible idea, there is just a suggestion that "somewhere those are excluded."

Come on, congress passed a law that that would've shut down every consignment store and craft show in the US but I'm supposed to trust that CoT fully thought this one out?

---

My point has been that most of these issues that you say are confusing are already present in the zoning code.  Women's shelters, foster homes, community homes, etc.... are already treated differently in the zoning code.  Families are already defined as 6 unrelated people.  Certain uses already have spacing requirements.  Based upon your reasoning, because our zoning code is so complicated, we should never change it.

This ordinance probably won't get adopted.  But you will still find the same confusion.  Say you wanted to provide a group home for people with Alzheimer's.  Are you now providing elderly housing, an assisted living facility, or a residential treatment facility?  If you want to be in a neighborhood, how many people are you allowed?  If you have 8 adults, plus a live-in nurse, are you a family?  If you are a family, do you still have to meet the requirement for assisted living facility?  It would take 100 posts to explain what constitutes a family under the zoning code right now.  Foster families, women's shelters, group homes, fraternities, residential treatment facilities, etc....--each of these already has a different definition under the zoning code, and each has different requirements and restrictions.

This was a rather minor adjustment to the number of people who are allowed to be considered a family.  I don't know that it makes much difference if it is passed or not.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.