concurring.
I agree with the court that the Oxford House’s failure to follow the Village of Palatine’s procedures for obtaining a special use permit—a procedure required of all other residents—is fatal to its Fair Housing Act claim. I write separately to focus on some aspects of this case.
The Oxford House is an organization with a lofty and impressive goal; it seeks to assist recovering alcoholics and drug abusers. That honorable goal, however, does not put the Oxford House above the law. Yet, the Oxford House has adopted a rather highhanded policy: “As a matter of practice, Oxford House, Inc. does not seek prior approval of zoning regulations before moving into a residential neighborhood.”1 Appar*1235ently the Oxford House believes that if members of the group move in quietly without notice it will be harder to evict them. This strategy is evident throughout this appeal. As a rationale for bypassing Palatine’s procedures for obtaining a special use permit, the Oxford House asserts that its residents (now that they are in place) would be stigmatized by the required hearing. Of course, had the Oxford House not disregarded the law in the first place, there would be no residents illegally living in the house who could be stigmatized. In seeking affirmance of the preliminary injunction, the Oxford House also emphasizes the harm its residents would suffer if displaced. Any such harm is the Oxford House’s own doing; again, had the Oxford House not prematurely moved the occupants into the house, no displacement would occur.
The Village of Palatine is very supportive of programs such as the Oxford House’s, but it has laws and regulations that take into consideration the rights of other property owners. Palatine’s special use process is not punitive. Requirements to follow such a political process — even where success may be uncertain — cannot be discarded as “futile.” Nor does possible controversy among neighbors or elected officials mean futility.
If the Village of Palatine refused a special use permit, such denial is not automatically a violation of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act requires “reasonable accommodation.” It may well be that the accommodations that the Oxford House seeks in this case are not reasonable because of concerns for the safety of the Oxford House’s residents, concerns for property rights of others, or concerns of residents of other group homes, for that matter. If, after a hearing, the Village of Palatine denies the special use permit, the reasonableness of the accommodations sought from the Village will then be at issue.
. The Oxford House's stated policy also explains that "[i]t considers itself no different from a *1235biological family and its members just move into any suitable house.” While the Oxford House may consider a group of unrelated people living under its roof the same as blood relations, the law does not. Compare Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935-36, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (striking down zoning ordinance which limited the number of related persons who could live in a house zoned single-family) with Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (upholding zoning ordinance which restricted the number of unrelated persons who could live in a house zoned single-family). Rather, traditional and extended families receive constitutional protection that individuals and groups of friends, acquaintances or even strangers do not. See Moore, 431 U.S. at 503, 97 S.Ct. at 1938 (“The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”).