Re: Communes and Survivalists | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Diana Carroll (dianaecarroll![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT) |
I think the goal of such laws isn't so that they can be proactively enforced but so that there's a "cause" by which authorities can shut down such a situation when they find one. The two situations where I've heard about them being used are in "crack houses" and in immigration situations. :-/. In upscale suburban communities the idea is to keep home values up by keeping single family homes as "single family". Don't know if they ever enforce it though! On Tuesday, July 2, 2013, R Philip Dowds wrote: > > Many communities, including Cambridge and Brookline here in MA, have > experimented with the unrelated individuals prohibition. Turns out this > prohibition is virtually impossible to enforce. > > RPD > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 1, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] > sharonvillines.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Actually, this depends on local ordinances too. They usually set a > maximum on the number of unrelated people who can live in a dwelling. > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > >
- Re: Communes and Survivalists, (continued)
- Re: Communes and Survivalists Sharon Villines, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists Stephanie, July 5 2013
- Message not available
- MS WT Culture Against Society Re: Communes and Survivalists Wayne Tyson, July 6 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists R Philip Dowds, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists Diana Carroll, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists melanie griffin, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists R Philip Dowds, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists Sharon Villines, July 2 2013
- Re: Communes and Survivalists Richart Keller, July 6 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.