Woman sues over law against cohabitation

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2005-03-30 02:13pm

Yeah, Tev, its never really enforced down here either AFAIK. Although I'm sure some of the Bible Hurlers who are in office would like it to be more enforced than it is, and in small town Mississippi, who knows....

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-03-30 02:19pm

RedImperator wrote: Those laws are enforced by municipalities specifically to limit student housing. The towns around Villanova have big big 19th century houses--sometimes five, six, seven bedrooms--in which no more than three unrelated people of the same gender could live. There's simply no way three collee students could afford to rent a house that size, so either the houses sit empty, or more often the landlords wink and nod at "friends" who "sleep over" every single night.

why don´t the municipalities like lots of students in one place? i´ve never heard of something like that. here they´re usually fucking glad when they have enough appartements for students and don´t have to waste space in kindergardens to put up provisoric living space for students which they sometimes have to do in the beginning of the semesters.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-03-30 02:34pm

salm wrote:why don´t the municipalities like lots of students in one place? i´ve never heard of something like that. here they´re usually fucking glad when they have enough appartements for students and don´t have to waste space in kindergardens to put up provisoric living space for students which they sometimes have to do in the beginning of the semesters.

Several University 'towns/cities' are a mixture of residential housing sat right beside a large University. Fifty years ago it was typical for a college student to live at home and attend college. Over a period of decades this trend changed with students living in 'On Campus" housing. Eventually the University got large enough and didn't provide enough on campus housing for students to attend all four years of college, so most expected the freshman student to live on campus only their first year and to move out their 2-4.

Of course students wanted to live close to their University as many didn't have cars or transportation to get to class. Property owners smartly realized that they could make more dollars by leasing their homes close to the University instead of living in it themselves. Many people started to rent out their homes and students individually couldn't afford the cost so they shared the house.

The aforementioned started to create a war between people who elected to stay in their adjacent university house versus those that were renting. Crime and in general 'college like behavior e.g. drinking, in these middle class neighborhoods. To battle the criminal problems that was occurring in these middle class neighborhoods, single family residents got laws enacted on the number of people that could live (usually same sex) in one house.

To some degree I'm sympathetic with the property owners who's neighbors elected to rent out their house to college students and caused a myraid of problems.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-03-30 02:37pm

The permanent residents of the area probably hate it for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's a giant pain in the ass dealing with a bunch of Goddamn drunken frat boys who want to impress their friends with how brave they are by jumping in front of traffic and blare music at 3AM.

Of course when they jump in front of my car, I downshift and hit the gas.
It doesn't speed up very much, but the engine revs and tire barking scares the shit out of them.

They're probably also concerned about the effect on property values.
God knows that if I bought a house, I'd be pissed if it dropped like a stone because the asshole next to me decided to lease his property out to a bunch of college kids.

Look at that woman in WV who had her car burned by a bunch of drunken students. If it'd been me, I'd been out there with a rifle next to the car and the first one to hurl a firebomb would get shot.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-03-30 05:03pm

Glocksman wrote:The permanent residents of the area probably hate it for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's a giant pain in the ass dealing with a bunch of Goddamn drunken frat boys who want to impress their friends with how brave they are by jumping in front of traffic and blare music at 3AM.

Of course when they jump in front of my car, I downshift and hit the gas.
It doesn't speed up very much, but the engine revs and tire barking scares the shit out of them.

They're probably also concerned about the effect on property values.
God knows that if I bought a house, I'd be pissed if it dropped like a stone because the asshole next to me decided to lease his property out to a bunch of college kids.

Why would property value drop because of who lives next to you?

Look at that woman in WV who had her car burned by a bunch of drunken students. If it'd been me, I'd been out there with a rifle next to the car and the first one to hurl a firebomb would get shot.

Thats not actually legal is it? Not that I blame you for wanting to shoot people for burning your car.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2005-03-30 05:19pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: Why would property value drop because of who lives next to you?

Because people don't want to buy a house next to noisy drunken college students.

Look at that woman in WV who had her car burned by a bunch of drunken students. If it'd been me, I'd been out there with a rifle next to the car and the first one to hurl a firebomb would get shot.

Thats not actually legal is it? Not that I blame you for wanting to shoot people for burning your car.[/quote]

Actually, if they're trying to destroy your property, you're just defending it. It's the same as if someone were breaking into your house. You give 'em a warning then start picking them off.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-03-30 05:25pm

Alex Moon wrote:
Because people don't want to buy a house next to noisy drunken college students.

Good point. That would be like living in barracks. BET 24/7 anyone?

Actually, if they're trying to destroy your property, you're just defending it. It's the same as if someone were breaking into your house. You give 'em a warning then start picking them off.

Ahh, see Canada has the opposite laws. If someone is trying to kill you or destroy your property you can only use force to defend yourself if you can't get away.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-03-30 06:47pm

We're a country founded by malcontents, Pirates and Religious nutjobs, the truely loyalist/civilized subjects were driven into Canada after The Revolution, with the Malcontents and Pirates having an early hand on keeping the nutjobs in check, made the rules kinda fast and easy, blow the other guy away before he does some other shit and the like.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2005-03-31 12:22am

Cpl. Kendall wrote:

BET 24/7 anyone?

You had to go through that? *cringe*

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-03-31 12:58am

Alex Moon wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote: Why would property value drop because of who lives next to you?

Because people don't want to buy a house next to noisy drunken college students.

Look at that woman in WV who had her car burned by a bunch of drunken students. If it'd been me, I'd been out there with a rifle next to the car and the first one to hurl a firebomb would get shot.
Thats not actually legal is it? Not that I blame you for wanting to shoot people for burning your car.

Actually, if they're trying to destroy your property, you're just defending it. It's the same as if someone were breaking into your house. You give 'em a warning then start picking them off.[/quote]

Actually, I don't think you can use deadly force in defense of property unless they are actually coming into your home.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-03-31 02:05am

I couldn't shoot them for merely trying to destroy my car.
However the law in this state does not impose a duty to retreat in the face of a threat and does allow you to defend property with nonlethal force.

That nonlethal force would be me sitting in the car and trying to move it.

I wouldn't be shooting them for trying to burn my car, I'd be shooting them for trying to burn my car with me in it

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-31 02:35am

why don´t the municipalities like lots of students in one place? i´ve never heard of something like that. here they´re usually fucking glad when they have enough appartements for students and don´t have to waste space in kindergardens to put up provisoric living space for students which they sometimes have to do in the beginning of the semesters.

Well, one thing you have to realize is that people who live on the Main Line are generally affluent WASP assholes, which explains a good deal.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-03-31 07:26am

HemlockGrey wrote:
why don´t the municipalities like lots of students in one place? i´ve never heard of something like that. here they´re usually fucking glad when they have enough appartements for students and don´t have to waste space in kindergardens to put up provisoric living space for students which they sometimes have to do in the beginning of the semesters.
Well, one thing you have to realize is that people who live on the Main Line are generally affluent WASP assholes, which explains a good deal.

I've found Narberth is the only town that doesn't have a huge pole up its ass. Proably because they're so isolated they don't need to have regular contact with the rest of the Main Line.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-31 07:32am

Ardmore and parts of Bryn Mawr are decent as well. I know some people continue Havertown to be on the Main Line, but I don't (we're more Irish-Italian. More Koreans and Jews, too).

But Bala Cynwyd, and most of Lower Merion...wealthy jackasses. I've been tempted to egg Iverson's mansion, though.

Although I do like most of the Welsh names, neverminding that the Welsh population of the area is like 4.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-03-31 07:35am

HemlockGrey wrote:Ardmore and parts of Bryn Mawr are decent as well. I know some people continue Havertown to be on the Main Line, but I don't (we're more Irish-Italian. More Koreans and Jews, too).

But Bala Cynwyd, and most of Lower Merion...wealthy jackasses. I've been tempted to egg Iverson's mansion, though.

Although I do like most of the Welsh names, neverminding that the Welsh population of the area is like 4.

The Welsh names are nifty, especially when out-of-staters try to pronounce them. Do you have any idea how the towns ended up being named in Welsh? I could never figure it out--to my knowledge, there was never a huge influx of Welsh settlers in the area (and Narberth, which also has a Welsh name, was named in 1896, long after Welsh settlers would have been assimilated).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-31 07:40am

The Welsh names are nifty, especially when out-of-staters try to pronounce them. Do you have any idea how the towns ended up being named in Welsh? I could never figure it out--to my knowledge, there was never a huge influx of Welsh settlers in the area (and Narberth, which also has a Welsh name, was named in 1896, long after Welsh settlers would have been assimilated).

The area was originally part of the "Welsh Tract" settled in the late 1600's by Welsh-speakers who wanted it to be a relatively autonomous county. However it was divided up and the Welsh settlers were quickly assimilated. Some of the leading families became quite powerful land-owners, and gave most of the towns Welsh names. That's also why there's little Welsh cairns by some of the highways.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-03-31 07:41am

Arg, I meant CONSIDER Havertown to be on the main line. I don't know why, since I don't think the railroad actually runs through the town.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-03-31 07:42am

Imperial Overlord wrote:
You had to go through that? *cringe*

Yeah. It really sucks when it's 0300 and some asshole is playing BET after he got home from a night of hogging.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-31 01:03pm

Glocksman wrote:I couldn't shoot them for merely trying to destroy my car.
However the law in this state does not impose a duty to retreat in the face of a threat and does allow you to defend property with nonlethal force.

That nonlethal force would be me sitting in the car and trying to move it.

I wouldn't be shooting them for trying to burn my car, I'd be shooting them for trying to burn my car with me in it

You're trying to weasel out on a technicality. Deliberately placing yourself in harm's way in order to claim that the resulting violence was self-defense is rather obviously dishonest, don't you think? As much as I often think things like "I'd love to shoot that fucker", one can't seriously argue that a vandalized car is worth someone's life.