Posted by Gordon (other posts) on August 06, 2014 at 11:30:58:
In Reply to: Re: Room For Me? posted by luke on August 06, 2014 at 01:51:30:
>>> Supposedly this is to prevent "unlicensed boarding houses".
>> Like hippie communes? [grin]
> It has long been my position that such laws have no right to exist.
It is certainly ludicrous that even for someone with a ten-(or more!) bedroom house, you aren't allowed to have more than three friends living there. My house (in theory) has four bedrooms (even if I use two of those for other purposes!). I very much enjoyed, when visiting Germany, how many houses and apartments there have groups of friends living there... not quite a "hippie commune" but almost!
> As a very low income person I see such laws as oppressive legislation passed by the rich, for the rich. In addition, you commonly see "boarding house" laws or ordinances passed by racist communities that dislike Latino migrants and people of color in general.
The city I live in, Farmers Branch, has made a rather nasty name for itself by passing an ordinance requiring landlords to verify that renters are not "undocumented" immigrants. Of course, that ordinance is contrary to Federal law, and the city wasted between five and fifteen million dollars of our taxpayer money in legal fees trying to defend their indefensible ordinance. (The city, ultimately, of course lost their argument on that one.) I'm sure you can Google to see all the various machinations.
But yes, this city is predominantly Repuglican, and pulls all the typical Repuglican bullshit... such as gerrymandering their city council districts (when forced to move to individual city council districts, instead of electing all members at large, in order to give the city's Latino population more representation... the city has something like 45% Latino population). They drew the district lines so one of the five districts has like 80% Latinos, and the other four districts are something like 52% Anglo each.
The Texas Repuglicans, of course, pull the same shit across the state too. Their gerrymandering of (both state and US) legislative districts is designed to create as many safely Repuglican districts as possible. (An example of the idiocy can be seen in Austin... when you are driving through downtown Austin on IH35, the Texas State Capitol is maybe one-half mile to the west of the freeway. If you were to walk between IH35 and the Capitol, you walk through FOUR (!) US Congressional districts... one of which goes all the way down to the Rio Grande Valley at the southern end of Texas, some four or five hundred miles away!!)
Clearly the Repuglicans are fighting a losing battle, and the demographics of Texas are running very much against them. It's not a question of IF they will lose control of Texas, only WHEN.
We are very much hoping that Texas will elect a Democratic governor in November (her name is Wendy Davis, and she's wonderful... a worthy successor to Ann Richards, Texas' last Democratic woman governor who lost the office to Shrub back in the early 90's).
> As Latino migrants are part or mostly Indigenous and so am I, I see that kind of racism as a personal affront,
I'm glad you understand why I'm so politically active here. :-)
> Therefore I see these laws as the laws of an enemy force of occupation and support any and all persons who choose to overtly or covertly defy such laws.
One of my favorite quotes is "People who think they're too smart, or too principled, to get involved in politics... are destined to be governed by people who are stupider, and less principled, than they are."
That said, there's another familiar old quote about how "You can't fight City Hall."
Actually you can, but the most effective way to realistically do that is through the election process... since the city's pockets for legal proceedings are a whole lot deeper than most any individual's are.
And we all saw just how effectively the Occupy movement was quashed by the Rethuglicans a few years ago.
We'll win a lot of these cases, ultimately... look at how breathtakingly fast the anti-gay marriage laws are falling across the USA... and I believe the marijuana laws are on the verge of just such a watershed too.
The problem with all of these is that the time constants involved in these sorts of corrections are "too long" compared to human timeframes. The classic "free market solutions" problem.
I'll get off my soapbox now, at least for the time being. ;-)