Interracial marriage was not permitted in many states during the early 1960’s. In fact, anti-miscegenation laws existed in the majority of the United States through the middle of the last century, allowing for racism to dictate the nature of marital and intimate relationships. The Supreme Court struck down those laws in 1967.

A few years later, the push for same-sex marriage began. Again, hateful legislation defined marriage in a way that includes some, while excluding others. It took a few decades for this movement to take hold, and there has been much backlash along the way, as one can witness through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and the incessant verbal diarrhea from pundits. In 2010, one state began to fight against the federal government’s restrictive definition of marriage. Many others followed. Same-sex couples can not be legally married in the entirety of the United States yet, but there is no doubt that opinion has shifted toward that happening eventually.

Sometimes the law is wrong. When it is wrong, we are obligated to recognize that and change it. These are, after all, civil laws, not God’s laws.

Hartford

The West End is currently looking at what appears to be an outmoded law:

The purpose of the R-8 district in the city is to provide for and protect single-family residences sited on a lot having a minimum area of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The R-8 district provisions encourage the future development of these very low density residential areas for primarily residential purposes by prohibiting conversions, roomers, most institutional uses and all business uses.

On the surface, this might look sensible. Who wants factories or prisons in her backyard? Zoning can be useful in that way.

All of Scarborough Street is zoned for R-8 use (see above). The language is seemingly vague. What does “primarily residential purposes” mean? On this street, in the same zone, a property is owned by the University of Connecticut. In an article the Courant ran on this, there was no mention of neighborhood opposition to what is used as a place for donor events. The Wadsworth Atheneum owns a property on the street. So does Jumoke Academy. Two properties are owned by trustees, another is a land trust. There are two churches operating on Scarborough Street. This leaves 21 other properties, one of which has been on the market for several years.

The issue at hand is 68 Scarborough Street.

From Homeowners to Thugs

The large home situated on more than two acres of land had been vacant for four years. In July, several adults who had entered a kind of legal partnership purchased the property. Every resident of the home who is over the age of eighteen is bound to pay the mortgage. There is no person collecting rent from others. Meals are prepared in a single kitchen and served family-style (for those of you born in the past few decades, that means everyone eats at the same table at the same time). Residents who are couples (there are three of those) share bedrooms as most other cohabitating or married couples would. The two residents who are single each have their own bedrooms. While some who grew up in large families may have unhappy memories of needing to share a bathroom with seven siblings, this is not the case at 68 Scarborough. There are multiple bathrooms.

Having been inside, I can say that it is entirely possible to be in one part of the structure and have no idea that another individual is even somewhere else in the house. The amount of space is a luxury that many of Hartford’s residents, in fact, do not have.

Knowing that there is no overcrowding, that they are paying their mortgage, and that the police are not being called to the house to break up ragers — these are working adults, mostly from Generation X — one might wonder, why the fuss?

In October, residents of 68 Scarborough received a cease and desist letter from the City of Hartford’s Licenses & Inspections, despite nobody from the City inspecting the premises. During the West End Civic Association P&Z Committee meeting last night, one resident — Dave Rozza — explained that the letter received indicated nothing about the procedure. They have attempted to contact the City to appeal this.

That letter follows a complaint allegedly signed by eighteen Scarborough street residents from 18 addresses, though there was no public reading of those names. Those making the complaint seemed to have made no direct contact with those living in 68 Scarborough. The family facing eviction has learned of neighbors’ concerns only second- or third-hand.

Misinformation has seemed to fuel outrage that eight adults and three children would move into a house without all being related by blood or marriage. One rumor circulating was that this residence was being used by HartBeat Ensemble– a theory that could be easily put to bed through having knowledge that the Carriage House Theater on Farmington Avenue serves as their professional space. Had anyone bothered to inspect, it would be quite clear that the kids’ Lego sets in the living room would make theatrical rehearsals difficult.

Nobody from L&I spoke at Wednesday’s meeting to elucidate the process.

The Problem of a Family

Those opposing this family occupying the house stated that it was simply a matter of zoning. Each person opposed lives on Scarborough Street. Only three or four opposition voices chimed in, with some straying off the message that this was about zoning. Someone voiced concerns over an increase in traffic; nothing was said about the number of residents who bike instead of drive or that they sold three of their vehicles since moving in.

If these were adult children from a so-called traditional family parking numerous cars in the driveway, would this be an issue?

Marilda Alfonso appeared to be the main voice of opposition, saying that over the 35 years she has lived on the street, she has felt compelled about every three years to defend the zoning law.

“It is about defending something that is very fragile in the city of Hartford,” she said.

“People like us,” she added, “should not be exiled” to places like West Hartford.

She continued to say that “there are plenty of other places in the city where” families like theirs could live.

Another voice of opposition described the property as being like an “apartment house” or “rooming house.”

By zoning definition, an apartment would have separate kitchens for each unit. There is only one kitchen area in this house. The family divides up chores, spreading the responsibility of who has to cook and who has to clean up.

A rooming house is defined as units for “transient lodgers, wherein no dining facilities are maintained for the lodger and in which bathrooms may or may not be shared.” All adults have their names tied directly or indirectly to the mortgage, making transience virtually impossible. There is a dining room.

68 States Its Side

Julia Rosenblatt of 68 Scarborough Street was given the opportunity to provide the family’s perspective. She acknowledged that one of the neighbors’ fears is that “property values would decrease.” She wondered how that is possible, given that this property had been vacant for four years prior to their purchase.

Rosenblatt pointed to the contradictions between zoning regulations relation to acreage and family. One section of the R-8 zoning language denotes single families, but a separate section says 3.6 families are permitted per acre. If one were to count them as five families instead of one, they would still be within acceptable range.

Nobody from 68 Scarborough was asking for zoning to change necessarily. The word “family” is what they were asking be defined.   The current definition, drafted in another era, states:

one (1) person; a group of two (2) or more persons living together and interrelated by consanguinity, marriage, civil union, or legal adoption; or a group of not more than two (2) persons who need not be so related, occupying the whole or part of a dwelling unit as a separate housekeeping unit with a common set of cooking facilities. The persons constituting a family may also include foster children; the number of which shall be in accordance with general statutes as amended and live-in domestic employees. For the purposes of determining density, a roomer, boarder or lodger shall not be considered a member of a family. In all other zoning districts a family may consist of the number of persons designated to occupy a dwelling unit as described in the definition of “density” in this section.

To clarify: a live-in domestic employee would be considered part of a single family, but unpaid adults behaving in every other way as family who are unrelated by blood, marriage/civil union, or adoption, would not be once the number of adults surpasses two. It does not put a cap on the number of offspring who are permitted.

Rosenblatt pointed out that other cities have modernized their definitions of family, and that “we’re asking for the definition of a family to be updated from 1964.”

Sunlight as the Best Disinfectant

In the discussion, those opposed to the living situation at 68 Scarborough said they did not want the neighborhood’s character to change.

“Nobody’s quite explained what this means,” Rosenblatt said.

Other West End residents, along with various other Hartford and non-Hartford residents had the chance to ask questions and make statements, though the chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Sara Bronin, who was present, was not asked by the chair to clarify terms.

Marissa Janczewska, a West End resident, voiced concern that the City is “threatening to evict” a non-traditional family. As someone who works with families, she spoke to the diversity in family structures throughout the city. Eviction, she thought, would set a bad precedent for others.

Another West Ender, Jeff Jahnke, noted “there seems to be reliance on an ordinance that’s vague.”

He said he chose to live in Hartford because of the “diversity in the city” and that there needs to be a thorough look into how a family is defined.

An Oxford Street resident, whose background is in Anthropology, said of 68 Scarborough residents: “they’re still a family group” and that “this is not 1964.”

The theme of modernizing language and values did not come exclusively from the younger generations. Long-time West End resident Toni Gold commented, “we should have such problems.”

“Our houses are too big for single families” by current standards Gold said.

Those standards in effect were created during a time when large nuclear families were the norm, and having live-in domestic employees was not unusual.

Now, families are typically smaller. The old definition does not fit so well fifty years later.

Jane Barstow, whose West End tenure pre-dates that of many others at last night’s WECA meeting, reinforced Gold’s perspective, saying that “we need to think about our carbon footprint.”

Steven Colangelo of Oxford Street suggested that if the City chooses to enforce this ordinance, with WECA then applying these standards to every household, there would be mass vacancy in the neighborhood for those not fitting the definition of family.

Still, others wondered if it was even constitutional to define a family.

More than once, the opposition was asked if the issue would dissolve were the definition of “family” to be changed but zoning laws left alone.

Alfonso said “it is unfair to ask those of us who have invested for years…” but never answered the actual question. By the time this unanswered question was asked a second time, much of the opposition had stormed out of the meeting. Though the chair declined to take a straw vote, there was undeniable, overwhelming support for 68 Scarborough residents to be left alone.

Hartford resident Julia Pistell asked “What is the perceived negative day-to-day impact” of the family occupying that property.

“I think we made our objection clear,” Alfonso said.

A West End resident who grew up in a place where Mexicans were told where they could and could not live said that he was “incredulous” about this situation.

Though the chair of the committee said this was different from excluding on grounds of race and religion, many in attendance were not so sure.

Cause for Financial Ruin?

One Hartford resident wanted to know what the “justification for financially ruining” this family could be. Eviction would bankrupt a family with three children, Daniel Piper said.

It would be one thing if there were people lined up to buy the house, but that is not the case. They would have to walk away from the property. Then what?

How Do We Attract Young People To Live in Hartford?

Max Condren, a West End resident, suggested that there be thought given to his up-and-coming generation.  Its needs and desires are different from those who came before.

“I like change,” he said.

What Happens Next? 

The owners of 68 Scarborough are appealing the cease-and-desist. One possible solution, though certainly not a first choice, would be for someone to adopt all members of the house to make their relationship legal under the existing ordinance. What is not possible is for some of the members to vacate; besides the financial responsibility for the mortgage, the entire household would have to dissolve.

That would mean one more vacant house on Scarborough Street.

Disclaimers aplenty: Initially I had planned to not write about this publicly, but the lackluster existing media coverage essentially forced my hand. For the record, I have changed the diapers of one 68 Scarborough resident. You can all place bets on which one. I have eaten with residents and argued with a few of them in the decade that I have known most of them. I have also written a letter in support of their homeownership; that letter was sent to Mayor Segarra, members of the City Council, and the head of WECA. Objectivity is a myth. Laws are sometimes unjust.