(Latest posts on such topics as Neighborhoods, Southside, Affordable Housing)
The point of Gadfly’s July 17 “More Night Sweats” post was that what City Council has wrought, City Council can unwrought.
The section of City ordinance 1302.43
Family. One or more individuals who are “related” to each other by blood, marriage or adoption (including persons receiving formal foster care) or up to 5 unrelated individuals who maintain a common household with common cooking facilities and certain rooms in common, and who live within one dwelling unit.
could read:
Family. One or more individuals who are “related” to each other by blood, marriage or adoption (including persons receiving formal foster care) and who live within one dwelling unit.
Too drastic?
Gadfly Antalics has shown that other college and university communities have managed with an ordinance containing a “3 unrelated individuals” provision.
That at least would be something.
Though the language purist in this Gadfly wonders why we have to muck up the definition of “family” with any trailing “or” provision that stretches its meaning and simply have a clean separate category for “student housing” or some such.
The “5 unrelated individuals” stretch as a definition of family (though a google search shows it is not unique with us) might have made sense at some point.
Gadfly would like to hear someone make the argument for it now.
Preferably in a locked room with Gadfly Antalics, Councilwoman Negron, and the Board of the South Bethlehem Historical Society.
But, again, the point is that what Council has made, Council can unmake.
I’m not sure it makes sense to define family in terms of unrelated individuals — isn’t that a *non-family* use that needs to be defined separately? (Although the definition of family certainly should allow for ‘unrelated’ individuals too.