KS Town Leaders Ban “Adult Co-Living” Arrangements

The right wing / religious right cannot stand adult people making the living arrangements that work for them.   They are insistent on everyone having the nuclear family that tradition describes.   A dad who can do what he wants outside the house and is served by a mommy who takes care of his property while providing him with frequent pleasure, producing his kids which she raises.  Everyone must do this by decree of tradition and god!  The right wing / religious right doesn’t want other adults to make their own choices in life, to do what is good for themselves without harming others.   This law ends the Golden girls style of living.   The right wing / religious right has tried for ever to stop co-habitation without marriage.   I wonder what other adult arrangements will become illegal next?

The Kansas City Star reports:

On Monday, a Johnson County city unanimously voted to ban a living arrangement aimed at helping tenants decrease the amount of rent they pay. The Shawnee City Council voted 8-0 to ban co-living, which has gained popularity in recent years as rent and home prices have soared.

The new ordinance defines a co-living group as a group of at least four unrelated adults living together in a dwelling unit. The ordinance stated that if one adult is unrelated to another adult, then the entire group will be classified as unrelated.

The practice, which includes things like sharing a kitchen, living room and community areas, started to gain popularity as rental and housing prices continued to increase across the United States.

The Insider reports:

“City Staff received input and concerns from residents and City Council members regarding a relatively new trend where single family homes are being purchased and converted into rental units with multiple individual tenants,” a memorandum of the ordinance said.

“In this arrangement, individual tenants have leases of varying lengths, have separate secured access to their rooms, and often do not know or have relationships with the others who are also occupying the same single family dwelling,” the memo continued, saying the rental arrangements are “not typical of common rental uses in single family districts that are occupied by family units.”

NPR reports:

Since it was approved unanimously a week ago, Shawnee’s decision has made news well beyond the Kansas City metro, with one national publication saying the city had “effectively [made] roommates illegal.”

The new ordinance has also been called out by KC Tenants, a local tenants rights group whose director Tara Raghuveer evoked Johnson County’s history of redlining and tweeted that groups of adults living together in an apartment or house is one of the few affordable options for lower-income people in the area.

But Shawnee council members pushed back forcefully this week, saying that, in fact, they’ve struck a blow to keep home prices from ballooning even faster than they have already. They said their motives for passing the co-living restrictions have been misrepresented.

 

 

Lizard • 2 hours ago

If you want to stop ballooning home prices, limit short-term rentals. Limit the number of homes speculative buyers and giant rental companies can buy. Don’t make roommates illegal for people who are struggling so much they can’t make their own rent payment. Sheesh.

Host of Twinkies Lizard • an hour ago

Hint: they are lying about the reason. They are not helping people. They are helping corporations. With the added bonus of brutalizing the poor, particularly women. Thus forcing women to be depended on men to whom they are related. Handmaid’s Tale continues.

SkokieDaddy – wiener dog dad • an hour ago

The ordinance stated that if one adult is unrelated to another adult, then the entire group will be classified as unrelated.

So if mom & dad and their college age son have their son’s girlfriend live with them, this will be banned?

Seems kind of crazy.

Gigi SkokieDaddy – wiener dog dad • an hour ago

If they’re all white an affluent, I’m sure their neighbors will be willing to give them a pass.

(((heleninedinburgh))) • 2 hours ago

For some people – for me, when I was a student – it’s a choice between living with flatmates and being homeless.
Inspiring to see municipal leaders taking such a strong pro-homelessness stance.

margaretpoa • an hour ago

More “small government” conservatives no doubt. I don’t see how this is remotely constitutional but with the Roberts Alito court, I’m sure they would side with the wealthy.

HopeLeft margaretpoa • an hour ago

Continuing the trend of property having more rights than people.

Puck • an hour ago

If you can’t afford to rent your own place then you can’t live in their town. The are forcing out low income people to move out so their town will only have upper class people.

TexasBoy Puck • an hour ago

Only the right people can live in that town. *wink, wink, nod, nod*

TexasBoy • an hour ago

So, in this town, someone who is elderly, single, needs care, and has no biological relatives can’t move in with people they’ve known for years. For instance, when I get to the stage I need assistance, I couldn’t move in with my best friend, his wife, and daughter, even though they are my sole heirs? What a stupid law.

clay TexasBoy • an hour ago

Shawnee’s not so much a town, as it is a historically segregated, wealthy suburb.

Makoto TexasBoy • an hour ago • edited

Yeah, that clause about “any one of the people being unrelated means they’re all unrelated” makes it incredibly problematic for a lot of cases. I’ve been in situations where I nearly moved in with some friends for a month or so after some major surgery (it was incredibly generous of them to offer), but that would put them in danger with this ban. Assisted living, same problem.

Hell, I’ve got an aunt and uncle (eta: that’s what I’ve called them my entire life, but they are unrelated) that immigrated to the US, and when they became citizens, they changed their last name to my family name because of our long, generational friendship. But if I took them in if, say, their home got destroyed, boom, banned under this setup.

TexasBoy Meet John Doe • an hour ago

If God wanted poor people to live in houses, he wouldn’t have made caves. That is their mindset.

clay justme • an hour ago

problem is – – – this is typical of nearly all of Johnson County, one of the wealthiest in the US. The renters would have to move to Wyandotte, Leavenworth, or Douglas County. Like the president of Santa Clara Community College in California living nearly 50 miles from campus to find housing affordable for her two professional earners household.

Gigi clay • an hour ago

The fact that it is “one of the wealthiest (areas) in the US” is the issue. People in affluent neighborhoods don’t want what’s essentially a rooming house next door. They want to keep “those people” as far away from them as possible.

Right Wing Liar SMEARS Democrats As Baby Killers On Fox News

A Fox News panel debating abortion rights got pretty heated as Cassie Smedile, the executive director of pro-Trump PAC America Rising, baselessly peddled a talking point about Democrats advocating for killing babies after birth. While this is obviously false and a deliberate smear attack, Democrat strategist Kevin Walling offered almost no pushback when he responded to her ridiculous claim.

“A Fox News panel discussion got heated on Tuesday when one of the guests falsely claimed Democrats are pushing to have “abortion beyond the birth of the child” during a discussion of yesterday’s leaked draft decision that would potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. Cassie Smedile, the executive director of America Rising pro-Trump PAC, was asked by anchor Sandra Smith to weigh in on Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) comments denouncing the draft decision by Justice Samuel Alito. “I think as a pro-life person what about the rights of the tens of millions of unborn babies relentlessly under attack by the left, for decades now,” responded Smedile. “We’re not talking about 40 years ago. Today’s Democrats are advocating for the right to have an abortion beyond the birth of the child. And most Americans would say, ‘That’s not something that sits well with me.’””

There Is Something Wrong With Ron Johnson

Trump Wanted BLM Protestors To Be SHOT In The Streets

Trump Candidate REFUSES To Recognize Biden As President

Cenk Uygur Reacts To SCOTUS Overturning Roe v Wade

Carlson: The Ukraine War Is Dem “Payback For 2016”

Tucker clearly is pro-Putin and pro-Russia.  The question is why.   Is it political as they say Tucker is convinced, he is going to be president when he wants to?  Is it financial, hoping for money from Putin?  Is it kompromat, does Putin have something icky on Tucker maybe?  Or is it just old fashion bigotry?   

Media Matters has the transcript:

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Democrats have convinced themselves that Russia stole the presidency, which rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton. And they mean it when they say it. And that’s why they are taking us to war with Russia.

So, that’s not their goal — saving Ukraine, saving human lives. No, that’s not their goal. Instead, the war in Ukraine is designed to cause regime change in Moscow. They want to topple the Russian government. That would be payback for the 2016 election. So, this is the logical, maybe the inevitable, end stage of Russiagate.

If you wanted to save Ukraine, its people, its infrastructure, its nation, you would push for a settlement now. You would have done it two months ago, but they’re not doing that. They’ve rejected it out of hand, so that’s not their goal, saving Ukraine, saving human lives.

We don’t arm Ukraine so we can help the Ukrainians, they are merely unfortunate pawns in all of this. We arm Ukraine so that we can punish Russia. Why? For stealing Hillary Clinton’s coronation.

  

carswell • 2 hours ago

Russian media asset claims US has ulterior motives for supporting Ukraine. Colour me shocked.

Misutaa Roboto • 2 hours ago

Yeah, how dare anyone dare to push back against Russian aggression. If we cared about Ukraine, we wouldn’t have helped them, and instead would have encouraged them to give up to protect themselves from what the Russians wanted to do to them. This is his attempt to hold onto his hard core of pro-Russian fascists and dullards.

“But Hillary Clinton!!!“

What a disgusting, smarmy little cuntling.

JackFknTwist • 4 hours ago

He really is Putin’s puppet.
Another useful idiot

Makoto • 4 hours ago

So.. he’s saying that “Russiagate”, his claim that the Russia-Trump links were all made up, were designed to lead to Dems getting into power, so that Russia would invade Ukraine, so that Dems would take out Putin?

Want to add a couple mouse traps or bowling balls on rails to that Rube Goldberg setup, Tuck?

zhera • 4 hours ago

The Ukraine president was minutes away from being captured at the beginning of the war. No doubt he would’ve been killed. Ukraine would never surrender to Russia after that. And they will never surrender now that Russia is shooting civilians in the streets.

Making this about the Dems is just lunacy.

J.Martindale • 4 hours ago • edited

Here we have a situation where the Russians, without question, attacked their neighbor for no good reason other than territorial expansion. America, by Tucker’s reasoning, should simply press for a settlement. Can you imagine how Faux would frame that ? “Biden surrenders to Russian aggression! Biden is America’s Chamberlain! The weakest President ever! ” They would crucify him.

Portraying support of Ukraine in the war of Russian aggression as a Democratic plot to overthrow Putin is one of the most ridiculous things this propagandist has come up with yet. Why anyone would pay attention to the twit befuddles me!

Bilderbeck • 4 hours ago

Tucker Carlson’s influence and his increasingly extreme views

“Every night, that show teaches fear and loathing. He may claim to be a person who opposes racism and prejudice, but what the show tells you every night is to be afraid, to be afraid of people who are in the street asking for police officers to not shoot Black people, be afraid of Afghan refugees who helped us in the war who are coming over here now, to be afraid of Dr. Fauci, and to be afraid of immigration in general, which he posits is part of a cabal, a plot to destroy Western civilization.

https://www.pbs.org/newshou…

https://www.nytimes.com/202…

amandagirl15701 • 4 hours ago

That’s as dumb as Alito’s reasoning that only the legislature can make abortion legal, when the SCOTUS routinely guts laws passed by the legislature.

*See the Voting Rights Act.

Trump Lawyers Tried To Hide His Fear Of Thrown Fruit

Remember that tRump is desperate to keep the idea he is an alpha he-man, the toughest, smartest, the fittest, the most manly, the all powerful OZ … I mean tRump.  It is a fiction like his wealthy, but …

The Daily Beast reports:

After a transcript leaked last week of former President Donald Trump decrying “very dangerous” fruits he feared protesters might throw at him, Trump’s legal team sprang into action. New emails show that Trump’s lawyers were so bothered by the deposition becoming public that they actually tried to un-make it public.

Even after The Daily Beast published a story about Trump expressing bizarre concerns about people hurling “pineapples, tomatoes, bananas” at him while onstage—“very dangerous stuff” in Trump’s words—his lawyers still tried to get the deposition that was posted in a court filing taken down.

Read the full article.

Hate Group Wins “Christian Flag” Case Before SCOTUS

NBC News reports:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that the city of Boston violated the Constitution when it refused to let a local organization fly a Christian flag in front of city hall.

While the case had religious overtones, the decision was fundamentally about free speech rights. The court said the city created a public forum, open to all comers, when it allowed organizations to use a flagpole in front of City Hall for commemorative events. Denying the same treatment for the Christian flag was a violation of free expression, it said.

“When the government encourages diverse expression — say, by creating a forum for debate — the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the decision.

CNN reports:

The case was filed in 2018 after a Boston official denied the application by the group Camp Constitution to raise a flag — described as “Christian” in the application — on one of the three flagpoles outside Boston’s city hall. The group is an all-volunteer association that seeks to “enhance understanding of the country’s Judeo-Christian moral heritage.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, said that though the court relied upon “history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech” to determine that the flag-raising program did not amount to government speech, he would have analyzed the case based on a more exacting definition of what constitutes government speech.

Under a more narrow definition of government speech, Alito wrote that it occurs “if — but only if” a government “purposefully expresses a message of its own through persons authorized to speak on its behalf.”

USA Today reports:

“This case is so much more significant than a flag,” said Mathew Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group that represented Camp Constitution. “Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints.”

Boston said it worried that losing the case would mean it might someday be required to fly a flag from a neo-Nazi group or an al-Qaida flag. Another option: The city could avoid flying flags inconsistent with its views by not flying any third-party flags in the first place.

 

KnownDonorDad • 11 hours ago

I say immediately ban third-party flags going forward BEFORE the Christian fascist flag has a turn to fly. Get on it, Boston city council.

Mrs. Councillor Nugent KnownDonorDad • 10 hours ago

I would imagine that that was the real reason for the case: to deny the Pride flag, etc. In that case by all means move any Pride flags off public property. Then let them try to fly theirs, it could fly alright.

Friday J.Martindale • 10 hours ago

No, it doesn’t, cause the Pride flag represents social acceptance and the Christian nationalist flag represents dominionism and overthrowing… the government?

They’re literally trying to use the government to mark territory by favoring their own version of their own religion, and claiming that that’s an equivalent ‘viewpoint’ cause their version of their religion hates the people the Pride flag shows acceptance of? Either way they’re using the government to impose their religion and silence minority voices.

Guestfornow TnCTampa • 10 hours ago

The Christian superpower of always claiming constant victimhood and persecution will never allow that. They want special rights.

For their superpower, they get the keys to the kingdom. With those keys they are free to hate and harm as they originally wanted to do. The Muslim superpower of not depicting the profit (spelled that way on purpose) Mohamed is weak compared to the Christian superpower.

Christians lie about everything. They will twist this decision to get their wants

Darreth Guestfornow • 10 hours ago • edited

Don’t be surprised when ALEC forces legislation thru Red States to force a Christian flag to fly all the time now if a third flagpole is available.

These are the flagpoles in question.

Thumbnail

Unlike many city halls, Boston does not have a flagpole on top of the building. These poles serve that purpose.

To me, that makes SCOTUS absolutely wrong. A Christian (or any other religious) flag could reasonably be seen as endorsing religion.

Darreth BobSF_94117 • 10 hours ago

That’s precisely what the SCOTUS did here. And that’s why the SCOTUS needs to be expanded to balance secularists with the current crop of Dominionists.

thatotherjean • 11 hours ago

Ugh. The decision was not based on religion, but it will be taken that way by every right-wing Christian religious group. I hope the Satanists are taking notes.

The_Wretched thatotherjean • 10 hours ago

The decision was based on the idea that a flag outside the governmental building wasn’t ‘governmental speech’. I think that’s a bizarre outcome.

Friday thatotherjean • 10 hours ago

What SCOTUS is doing is pretending it’s just a ‘viewpoint’ and not an imposition of an establishment of religion when the CHristians want to impose their religion, either with their DOminionist flag or removing any symbols representing people they want to eliminate from the public square.

BobSF_94117 Houndentenor • 11 hours ago

These are the official flag poles of the city, displaying the national and state flags.

Yes, the third pole is open to civic groups BUT flying a religious flag “on top of city hall” is an endorsement of religion. It’s absurd that SCOTUS ignored that aspect. Religion is privileged in this country but that comes with a few restrictions, which help guarantee the freedom, not hinder it.

Houndentenor BobSF_94117 • 10 hours ago

There was zero chance that any of the six Federalist Society picks for SCOTUS would agree to ban all religious displays from government buildings. That is a nonstarter of an argument. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but this is the court we got from not enough Democrats turning out in 2000 and 2016. This is what we have to deal with now. Just wait and see what they do with Roe and Obergefell.

JWC • 10 hours ago

Let’s just cut to the chase Their objection was to a PRIDE flag It’s not that they want their flag to be flown its that the don’t want a PRIDE flag flown

TexasBoy • 10 hours ago • edited

Now apply this Free Speech thingy to Disney and Florida…

Darreth • 10 hours ago

Now that the Dominionists have won this nanometer case they will take a light year. So, this will be REPLICATED across the nation now. Dominionists will get more and more wins as time goes by.

Schooling Ron DeSantis

Join Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian™, as she instructs Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on CRT: “Christian Reactionary Teaching.” Glory.