Arsenist Wanted

[42]

So I've decided that apartment hunting sucks.

I attribute most of this to living in "Happy Valley" Utah where half of the landlords refuse to rent to me because I'm single and therefor will cause the gates of the netherworld to open-up in any apartment I rent.

I hate being treated like a kid just because I'm not married. This is such a Utah County thing too.

So the best excuses so far are:
"Well, we really would prefer a married couple to live here."
"I don't think you can handle being next to a family."
and
"The place just isn't ready for singles."

Well, they can jsut take their little breeding-holes and BURN. At least that's what happened in my hallucinatory head.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

Thats the way to be 42.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I thought that community steering was illegal. Kind of like, "oh we dont want a black person in our neighborhood". Or "oh I didn't see that you were a jew, Im sorry, we're all full up!"
Refusing to rent to you because you are married seems illegal too.

It may not be, but it seems that way.

Is there a housing authority or something tht you could talk to and ask about it?

If you have the cash and look respectable and follow your lease I just dont see how they could be allowed to refuse you.

[Spriggan]

It is in Provo when it comes to married and unmarreid people.  Supposedly there's a bill that the Provo city counsel is wanting to pass that won't let more then one single person live in a non BYU approved house.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

There are a lot of foolish things that happen in Utah towns. Many of them unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter to Utah.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

It is in Provo when it comes to married and unmarreid people.  Supposedly there's a bill that the Provo city counsel is wanting to pass that won't let more then one single person live in a non BYU approved house.

Hmmm so when you sue the City Council because they've made it impossible to afford housing anywhere nearby you'll probably make bank.

Thats ridiculous. Its a violation of your rights as a human being in the name of someone elses morality. I hate it when people think they have to legislate my morality. I suppose it would have been illegal for me to have lived with my fiance for a year before we got married there, where as here it was almost a neccesity. I pay over 1400 dollars a month in rent to live close enough to my work that I dont have to worry about my car dying next year because I've piled on the miles and I COULDN'T have done it without her.

I remember why I never want to be a Utard!

[Spriggan]

considering it's BYU that controls most of the houseing laws sueing the city councel wouldn't do much good.  BYU is a private institution and basicaly what it does is legal, just not fair to provoians.  That's why I want to move away from the student center here to orem or near Fell (so I can poke him with a stick).

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

The City Council (which you said was going to vote on the bill) is not BYU and therefore their attempt at forcing everyone in the municipality to live a certain way is unfair and could probably be sued succesfully. A city is not a college, forcing everone in said city to live at the whim of college standards is ridiculous.

[House of Mustard]

Lately I've been stuck only posting on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so I don't want to get into a big involved argument, but I would like to say this:

1)  I agree with the complaint that Provoan society is a little married-oriented, and I agree completely with everything 42 said.

2)  However, it's not illegal.  According to the Fair Housing Act, landlords can't discriminate according to family status.  Unfortunately, the only family status' that can't be discriminated against are:
*Families with children under 18
*Pregnant Women

So, if 42 miraculously gets pregnant, then he can live anywhere he wants.  Otherwise, discriminating against singles is perfectly legal.

3)  Mad Dr. Jeffe:  What are laws if they don't legislate morality?  You take away morality from law, and all you have are a bunch of traffic restrictions.  

Morality is basically the line between "right" and "wrong".  All laws, to some extent, are based on morals.  Laws against murder, burglary, rape, etc. are all based on morals.

One might argue that such laws are not in place to enforce the morality of the criminal, but rather to protect the innocent.  This argument is flawed, however.  By protecting the innocent, the government is saying "Murder is wrong, we won't let it happen to you" or, in other words "Infringing on your rights is wrong and we aren't going to let anyone do that to you."

4)  Spriggan: BYU influencing the City Council is not a big conspiracy, and it's not terribly unfair to Provoians (or at least not more so than the influence of any large institution in a small community).

Cities need income, and they are more than happy to change a few rules to ensure that large money-making institutions are happy.  It's no different from a small town with a couple of big power plants, or a small farming community.  The City Council will do everything it can to keep the institution happy.  It may not be perfect, but it's common goverment/corporate practice.

[House of Mustard]

Crap - that was a lot longer than I meant it to be.  I don't know my own longwindedness.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I disagree with you, and while I do want to get into it later Im at work and can't spend tons of time on the topic right now. Suffice it to say that I feel writing a law to arbitrairily enforce morality is wrong and against the constitution of the United States. I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality and can cite the very recent ruling of the US Supreme Court that strikes down state Sodemy laws as a violation of privacy. Since most people still find homosexual activity immoral and the previous laws made the immoral activity of Sodamy illegal I find it hard to say all laws are based on a standard of morals.

Furthermore I belive Law is created when different cultures or sets of ideals come into conflict forcing a Government to arbitrate between two or more parties.

Laws on Murder and theft in our country are based in a merging of old germanic and latin traditions where the person wronged has lost "property" be it his possessions or his life. Not because it is immoral, although morality can play into a trail by peers lawyers try to keep it from being an issue and try to get the Jurists to focus on matters of law and fairness rather than morality and emotion.


In closing I feel that housing should be availible to everyone who can afford it. To deny someone housing based on their marital status when they can clearly afford to live there is wrong. Eventually the courts will agree that its wrong and amend the fair housing act to include a broader definition of family status than one coined in 1969. In a civil court one could indeed prove that they were discriminated against with a good lawyer and probably get a nice fat check.

[House of Mustard]

Did you read my post?

Let's back up.

You said that you don't like legislated morality.  I said that all laws are based on morals, in the sense that all laws are based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.  Then you said that since sodomy is now legal, then laws must not be based on morals.  Huh?

I wasn't saying that laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals, nor was I saying that laws against murder, burglary and rape are based on the Ten Commandments.  My argument had nothing to do with religion.  I was simply saying that laws are based on abstracts such as "right" and "wrong".

You are saying (in the third paragraph) that laws are not moral, merely administrative - a way of keeping the peace and arbitrating arguments.  That would work, if there were not natural rights explicitly laid out (things that cannot be infringed upon because it is against nature, i.e. immoral).

Let's look at your housing argument, taking all morals out of the picture:
Why should the landlord not discriminate?  What is the problem with discrimination?  I challenge you to explain the problems of discrimination without resorting to morals (try explaining it without saying that it is "wrong" or that people have natural rights.

What about all the social welfare laws?  They are not administrative - they're not in place to arbitrate.  They are done to help the less fortunate homeless, poor, unemployed etc...  It is charitible, another incarnation of morals.

As for your complaints about the Fair Housing Act:  Yes, it might be lacking.  However, I merely brought it up for the purpose of quoting the law, responding to your post "I thought that community steering was illegal."  No, it's not.  Whether the FHA is out of date or unfair or whatever, it is currently not illegal to discriminate based on marital status.

[Spriggan]

I'm not saying that's a conspericy it's just well known that BYU has a lot of influence.

[House of Mustard]

I agree.  I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

[Fellfrosch]

Another thing to remember, Jeffe, is that the city council action was referenced somewhat incorrectly by Spriggan. It is an addition to the zoning restrictions that happens to make a few concessions to BYU (because, as mentioned, BYU holds tremendous sway). Zoning restrictions are discriminatory by nature, if that's the word you want to use, because they are designed to structure communities: we'll put the stores here, the families here, and the students over here. The fact that the proposed bill makes concessions to BYU is actually the only redemmable part about it, because otherwise students would find it nearly impossible to get housing at all. Suffice it to say that almost nobody likes the bill, because it limits housing options and removes a major source of income for a lot of the elderly people in Provo who subsist solely on Social Security and rent checks. People are fighting against it, and I imagine that it will be killed.

Just wanted to set things straight. I could tell from your statements that you thought the bill was designed by or catered to BYU as a means of enforcing the Honor Code on an unwilling populace, and that's not true.