Retirement Community Fights To Evict 6-Year-Old Girl

[Are_grits_groceries]

A retirement community in Largo, Florida is fighting to evict six-year-old Kimberly Broffman from the home of her grandparents Jimmy and Judie Stottler, the only parents she's ever known. According to the development's bylaws, all residents must be older than 55.

Kimberly is the only person expected to vacate the home.

Kimberly's grandparents have tried selling their house to leave the neighborhood, but because of the crash in the housing market, there are no buyers. They have lowered the price from $225,000 to $129,000.

The fight between Kimberly's grandparents and the community has been going on for years, but soon a judge will decide if the girl must leave. According to NBC News, there is a real possibility that she could be placed in state foster care.
Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/33410590#33410590

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/retirement-community-figh_n_328396.html

Another article: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/01/Northpinellas/Grandparents_sued_for.shtml

I bet they serve gruel at meetings too.

[tridim]

1. Sounds like Del Boca Vista, phase II.

[imdjh]

25. Were those the folks who tried to evict the couple that got pregnant on the last ovarian gasp?

[tridim]

27. No, just a lame Seinfeld reference.

[monmouth]

69. That may have been Century Village...Oy....n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

121. You sold my Cadillac to Jack Klompus? n/t

[Mari333]

2. dodgy old fuckers

Another reason I will avoid one of those awful places as I age.

[virgogal]

5. The grandparents agreed to the rules when they moved in. Enough said.

[kestrel91316]

8. I have to agree. People have the right to live in a community that has

rules like this. There are condos some places that don't allow pets, period. Same thing.

It's unfortuante, but they knew the rules when they moved there. They will have to make the financial sacrifice and sell low to get out, or make alternate arrangements for the child.

[imdjh]

19. Children are not pets. And BTW, I think ads for "all gay building" are illegal too.

Yes, people should consider where they are moving and if it meets their needs and if they fit in. A person who likes to go to sleep at 8 PM shouldn't move into a building across from the college campus.

But family comes first. And just as I would not be told that I have to vacate because my lease specified "one occupant" and I rudely took in a dying friend, I would not be told that I have to move because my niece or nephew became my child.

[SeekerBlue]

24. Those of us without kids have families, too - what you really mean is "KIDS come first"

and I disagree. Kids are people just like I am. Just because I grew up doesn't mean I am worth less.

I think the association should perhaps work with them, bend the rules, give them tons of extra time to sell, etc. - but rules are rules.

What if I move into a nice, quiet, child-free area and then see it taken over by loud childed residents? What would you say to me then? Who should move out?

[imdjh]

29. No, I mean kids come with being human. All population segments have issues.

I would list various issues and well grounded stereotypes but it would derail the conversation into whether those stereotypes are well founded or not, or simply too upsetting for anyone to actually say outloud. But there are racial, sexual, national, ageist, classist, and lookist issues all of which are as legitimate of concern to a prospective property owner, or not, as whether there is a small child.

This is not a condo, a communal living situation with common walls. This is a single family home.

[Hepburn]

68. +1....

....I live in a Senior's Only development and I do not wish to have small children permanently living here. I have raised my children ~~ been there and done that. At this time, I want some peace and quiet. Peace and quiet are usually not associated with small children.

[izzybeans]

161. The presence of a chid makes you worthless?

How sad for you.

[kestrel91316]

82. IIRC the issue of whether CC&R's can have age restrictions is settled law.

If you wish to challenge it in court, be my guest. I just think that if it's legal, then IT'S FUCKING LEGAL. And until the law changes, people have to deal with it.

No one is forced to live in a place with CC&Rs. I know I never will again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. The kid moved in well after they moved in

due to life happening. Yes, it happens

I guess foster care is best?

You know I love you, but on this one you are wrong.

Just saying...

[kestrel91316]

86. Don't get me wrong. I am no lover of CR&Rs, but they are a legal

thing, and until they are ruled illegal, people have to deal within their constraints.

Obviously the child is best off WITH the grandparents. They should take the financial hit, sell, and live in a normal home. Why would they even want to raise a small child with a bunch of cranky old people who hate kids???

[sudopod]

166. They are trying tro sell

It's on the market at half of the appraised value, but there are no buyers.

What are they supposed to do?

[northernlights]

116. 6 years ago when they took her in, the market was booming

They inherited the house, have no mortgage, so anything they got for it was a windfall. They got greedy. They could afford a lawyer when the market was still strong...but couldn't afford to knock to price down to sell and move.

They should have sold the place back in '04 when they first took her in. They knew the rules, and chose to ignore them. It seems like the development gave them plenty of time before they sued over it. Too bad the little girl has to pay. The grandparents...sorry, but no pity.

[AuntPatsy]

137. Just wow huh...what have we become? rules..wow...just wow..never mind life is not so exact...

[jberryhill]

45. ...or no gays

Children are not pets.

They are humans, and have rights just like any other humans.

Explain to me why "no children" and "no gays" is different?

[kestrel91316]

88. I wasn't discussing gays. IIRC, Courts have ruled many times that

restrictive covenants are a legal and binding aspect of the contract when you buy one of these places, and for people who are a certain age, don't have children at home, and don't want them at home, the courts have ruled that age restrictions are legal.

I happen to HATE condo associations and stupid CC&Rs that don't let people hang laundry and have pets or guests or whatever Nazi crap they have their silly rules about. But they are LEGAL. Which is why you couldn't PAY me to live someplace like that. I was in a condo for 8 years. NEVER AGAIN.

[jberryhill]

93. The courts have ruled lots of things....

So?

Children are human.

Courts have ruled that gays are not a protected classification for anti-discrimination laws, and that gays cannot marry.

If court rulings are your guide to what's right, then that's an odd view of human rights.

[Hepburn]

100. Age restrictions are legal and are not discriminatory. n/t

[imdjh]

122. What if one race or demographic is more likely to have dependent grandkids than others?

How many black people do you see living in these retirement communities? Me neither.

[kestrel91316]

102. So? Last I heard, we were a nation of laws. If you don't like laws that

allow age-restrictive CC&Rs in private real estate, work to change those laws. Don't bitch about the fact that a contract that someone voluntarily entered into is being enforced.

Again, why are you trying to turn the discussion to gay rights? We were having a discussion about, essentially, the enforceability of a legal and binding contract.

And don't try to make ME the bad person here. I don't own real estate with an age restriction, nor will I in the future, lol. I also won't own real estate where I can't hang my laundry to dry.

[Hepburn]

123. I am in favor of the age restrictions ~~ did you mean to reply to a different post? n /t

[bobbolink]

127. "unfortunate". Now THERE'S a "progressive" v iew.

:eyes:

The state gets to pay for a kid to be in foster care, and the kid gets to suffer the rest of her life for this shit.

Ya just gotta love "progressives". All heart. :eyes:

[Hekate]

48. There are a whole host of unforeseen reasons that grandparents may take in the kids...

Parental deployment in the military, parental neglect or substance abuse, parental death...

It's a dilemma that's been building for a long time around the country: retirees who now see that the house is empty and decide to sell it and move to a nice retirement community, when suddenly after a few years they get the proverbial baby on the doorstep. What are they supposed to do? These folks have tried to sell their home.

Hekate

[drm604]

56. They're trying to leave, but they can't find a buyer.

There are extenuating circumstances here. Should the child be taken away from her family because they can't find a buyer for the house? How can anyone be that cruel?

I wonder what happens if a 60 year old in one of these communities has a 35 year old child who's been forclosed and can't find decent work in this economy. In past times, they would move in with their parents until they got back on their feet. These restrictive communities would prevent that.

They're anti-family - but somehow I suspect that the right-wing "pro-family" groups would take the side of the communities.

[Hepburn]

71. As long as there is one resident 55 years old or older and all...

...residents are 18 years or older, there is no problem. My new neighbors are three guys ~~ father, son and grandson. The son is 18 years old; the dad is mid-40's and the grandfather is about 70 years old. So the family qualifies.

[drm604]

96. Okay, that solves that problem,

but what if they have to take in a child and grandchild, or just the grandchild as in this case?

It's disgusting that a child should have to go into foster care when they have loving and capable family members who are willing to take them in.

[Hepburn]

99. The problem is that is one child is let in...

...the all other children have to be let in. And the specific purpose of a Seniors Community is to NOT have residents under the age of 18 years. As I see it the best interests of one child do not out weigh the best interests of an entire community.

[drm604]

104. It's not just the interests of one child.

It's the interests of any child who suddenly finds it necessary to move in with family. So, yes others could also move in. These kinds of agreements should be illegal. People should not have that kind of say over the lives of their neighbors.

[DemBones DemBones]

136. in this situation,

"According to the development's bylaws, all residents must be older than 55."
-- huffington post.

no 35 year-old kids moving in with mom and dad there.

[bobbolink]

126. Didn't Dickens write about you?

[Quantess]

3. Maybe she's a real brat.

[slackmaster]

4. My mom lives in a neighborhood that has a 55+ CC&R restriction

It keeps property values down. My house is smaller and not nearly as nice, but the market value is about 30% higher than hers.

[Hepburn]

72. My home because it is a Senior's Development has a higher value...

...than a similar home. Guess areas are different.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. She has to go - it's unfair to everyone else who bought there to let her stay.

When you buy into a retirement community with age restrictions, you must comply with those restrictions or leave the community. I don't see why this should need to go to court at all. The grandparents are in violation.

[imdjh]

11. These kinds of rules have taken a serious beating over the years.

The bottom line is that these age restrictions aren't really all that different from any illegal covenant.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

87. You're completely wrong. Age restrictions are allowed under Fair Housing Laws

They are a specific exemption. A certain percentage of the housing has to be 55 or older in order to qualify, but in most such communitites the percentage is close to 100%. That is why people voluntarily buy into "Retirement Communities".

They are not anything close to an illegal covenant.

[imdjh]

120. Until they are successfully challenged, which is an inevitability.

[CanonRay]

15. What is wrong with people like you?

I can't believe anyone would take the side of the homeowners association and put this kid in foster care. You should be ashamed.

[MercutioATC]

18. Nobody here is advocating "putting this kid in foster care".

However, people who purchase a home in a community with rules have the right to expect that those rules will be followed.

There's no requirement that the girl go into foster care. The grandparents are free to move outside the community and have the girl live with them.

[CanonRay]

"there is a real possibility that she could be placed in state foster care."

[MercutioATC]

23. Not if the grandparents move.

The only reason she'd be placed into foster care is if she was unable to live with her grandparents.

If they move into a community that allows children, that won't be an issue.

[EOTE]

36. They already halved the asking price for their home...

and they still have no buyers. I'm guessing the grandparents aren't in financial condition to take on another mortgage.

[MercutioATC]

41. Again, that's not the issue.

That's not the problem of the other residents in the community. The grandparents are free to move and have the girl live with them.

[EOTE]

49. Obviously, that is the issue.

If the grandparents can't afford to move because they haven't sold their house, they're obviously not "free" to move, are they? I wouldn't have thought that would be too hard to get.

[liberalhistorian]

138. Don't bother, it's hopeless. This particular poster

is not a progressive, as is obvious in his not giving a damn about the fact that a five-year-old child could be put in foster care because the grandparents can't find a buyer for the home even after halving the price and may not be able to afford to live anywhere else without selling the home. He's Mr. Legalistic around here. Hopeless, like I said.

[EOTE]

155. It certainly seems like it.

It was about 15 years ago that I realized that people who lack empathy are sociopaths or very close to it. I never thought I'd see such a lack of empathy on the DU.

[MercutioATC]

184. I never claimed to be "progressive"...especially not as you seem to define it.

There are only a few facts at play here:

1) The association has a restriction on residents under 18 years of age.

2) This restriction is legal.

3) The association has chosen to enforce this restriction.


What is YOUR solution?

[Lance_Boyle]

152. They are free to reduce their asking price until someone is willing to pay it.

That, or they are free to let the child move somewhere else, where they have not agreed in advance to abide by rules that prohibit her living there. The grandparents are not victims here - their neighbors are.

[jenniferj]

162. No the child is the victim

She has lost her mother to drugs and she is living in a neighbourhood of arseholes that would rather she
leave the only security she has for foster care..They will break her if she is forced to leave.

[NashVegas]

204. She Is Also a Victim to Her Grandparents' Choices

They've had several years to confront their situation and come to a pro-active solution.

(sidenote: no wonder Mom was on drugs - these things don't happen in a vacuum.)

[Xicano]

52. This would be my response

This is my fucking house that I fucking paid for and ain't nobody in the land of the free where everyone has equal protection going to tell me that my grandchild can't live in MY house. Whoever doesn't like that can go fuck themselves.


Peace,
Xicano

[Mariana]

63. You're probably not so stupid

as to buy a house in a development that would forbid it in the first place. I know I wouldn't want to live around such people.

I honestly have little sympathy for these grandparents. They didn't want anyone else's grandchildren around them, or they'd have bought elsewhere. If it was one of their neighbors who took in a grandchild, they'd probably be bitching along with the rest of them, demanding the kid be thrown out.

My heart breaks for the child. You just know she believes that all her neighbors hate her personally, and that her grandparents' problems are all her fault.

[jberryhill]

94. "or they'd have bought elsewhere"

They didn't buy the residence in the first place, they inherited it.

Reading is fundamental.

[mitchtv]

129. so, your signature on the CCR.s is worth nothing?

a contract is settled law

[Xicano]

209. Any part that's contrary to equal protection or any other facet of the supreme law of the land, yes

Age discrimination is no different than any other discrimination. You're not saying that if all things being equal here you would side with this contract if, say, instead of age stipulation it stipulated something like no blacks, or no mexicans, or no women, or no gays allowed would you?

If your answer is no, which I am going to assume of course that it is, then, how do you reconcile being ok with one discrimination but not another? I cannot see how anyone can reconcile the two.


Peace,
Xicano

[NutmegYankee]

53. Now that is hardcore!

I never expected something like that on DU!

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. Look around

You'll find right wing responses to just about any thread on any topic lately, unfortunately. :evilfrown:

[laughingliberal]

91. I've noticed that. A real shame :( nt

[liberalhistorian]

139. I've noticed the same thing and it's getting

really sickening.

[MercutioATC]

65. Yeah...despite best efforts logic does occasionally creep in here.

When one buys a house in a restricted community, one agrees to live by those restrictions.

The grandparents were aware of these restrictions and bought there, anyway.

[NutmegYankee]

112. You are flat out wrong

The articles state that they lived in the neighborhood before taking in their Granddaughter. As for breaking up a family, how can you seriously propose that? If the neighborhood association has such a problem with it, buy the house from the Grandparents and sell it to someone else so the Grandparents can move away.

And as for logic, what part of economics did you flunk to suggest they can just move out without selling the house?

[MercutioATC]

114. Regardless of when they bought the house, they were aware of the rules.

It's not the association's responsibility to buy the houses of residents who break the rules.


...and I don't know enough about their financial situation to know whether they can move without selling the house or not, but that's immaterial. The rule isn't "breaking up a family", the grandparents are free to keep the family together if they move to a community without age restrictions. This is an unfortunate situation, but it's not the association's fault nor is it their responsibility to fix it.

[NutmegYankee]

119. You chose to skirt around the issue.

They cannot sell the house to move out. This being reality, it requires money to live somewhere you know.

But hey -
Why have empathy when you can have only rules? Pathetic! It's just a matter of time till the day someone stops taking this "it's just business" bullshit and blows someone's head off to prove the point that they won't take it anymore. I'm truly amazed it hasn't happened already given the sociopathic nature of today's society. You can only beat down people to a point...

[MercutioATC]

182. Again, it's an unfortunate situation...but it's not the association's problem.

The girl simply cannot live in this community.

[NutmegYankee]

189. It's unfortunate that you love injustice -

and fight to defend it. It was fighting the rules that got us the civil rights environment we have today. The Opposition supported that injustice because it was "the law".

[liberalhistorian]

141. They did not BUY the house. They

INHERITED it. And they HAVE tried to sell their home so that they can move elsewhere, even halving the price of the home. They may not be able to afford to live elsewhere if they can't sell their home first. And the regulations of many HOA'S will not permit people to leave homes vacant if they move elsewhere; iow, even if they could afford to move before selling the house, they may not be permitted to do so. And they may have also been the only family who could take in their granddaughter when needed. What were they supposed to do, let the state put her in foster care? But don't let humanity get in the way of your "logic."

[MercutioATC]

179. Even better. They got it (esentially) free.

Again, the house might not sell at the price they want, but it WILL say at the right price.

[sudopod]

169. Just like it isn't my responsibilty to pay for healthcare for poor people

They should have thought about that before being poor.

OH WAIT, DISREGARD THAT! I'm not an asshole.

[provis99]

185. So you're a Rules Nazi.

You would happily have executed Stauffenberg for trying to murder Hitler, because trying to murder Hitler was against the rules, and "Rules are rules"? You fucking sick psychopath.

[MercutioATC]

186. No, but I don't believe the association has the responsibility to solve this problem.

Nor do I believe in infringing on the contractual rights of the entire community because one family has an issue.

[sudopod]

167. Move where?

Under a highway bridge?

[LynneSin]

173. The grandparents are going to lose all their money if they move

No one wants to buy the house. The house is worth $225k and they can't even get $129k for the place because the market sucks.

So in a nutshell you're saying "Fuck the grandparents let them lose all their money". Where is your sense of compassion.

I think there should be exceptions if it's proven that the child has no other place to go and the grandparents see to it that the child behaves in the community. Perhaps the grandparents could keep the house on the market until they find a buyer at a fair price instead of losing everything just to get out of there.

[tammywammy]

183. Actually, the house isn't worth $225k if they can't sell it for even $129k

It's not even worth $129k if they can't sell it for that either.

[Hepburn]

80. The grandmother inherited the house....

...so whatever equity there is was a benefit she did not earn.

[Raineyb]

61. Hello! They're trying or did the whole they can't sell their house part

of the OP just fly completely past you?

[MercutioATC]

64. Correction: They can't sell the house for the price they want.

There IS a price at which the house will sell.

[Raineyb]

132. Considering the state of the economy the sellers may not be able to get a mortgage

But that's neither here nor there.

The house hasn't sold thus far. What would you have them do sell it for a dollar? I'm sure it would sell for that but it's not exactly reasonable is it?

[liberalhistorian]

142. They've already halved the price

and are bringing it down even further. But, in case you've been living under a rock and haven't noticed, mortgage lending has really dried up or tightened up so that a great majority of people are unable to get mortgages at this time. Not to mention that, in many areas of the country, including where the grandparents are, homes just ain't selling no matter WHAT the price is.

[joeybee12]

33. They've had the kid there for 4 years...

...and the association objected right at the beginning...even in a bad economy, how could they not find a buyer in 4 years? I'm sure the whole story is not in this article.

[tsuki]

51. Our area has many of these "gated" retirement communities. I can

understand why they cannot sell in 4 years. There are no minorities, no children, and their TeeVee is tuned to FAUX. They scratch and claw all day long. Fights among the "Homeowner dis-Associations" regularly make the news. They have ruined their own property values.

[joeybee12]

57. I just wonder what they paid for the house compared to what they;re

trying to get...they just seem fishy to me because it has been 4 years...and they did such a great job on their own daughter, too.

[Hepburn]

159. They paid nothing ~~ the grandmother inheritied it. n/t

[Hepburn]

101. I live in one of those gated communities to which you refer...

...and our precint voted solidly for Obama last November. Stereotyping is really a stupid thing to do.

JMHO

[Raineyb]

62. I can see why they haven't had a buyer in 4 years

Who wants to move into a house with a resident's committee or whatever the local fascists call themselves, who apparently have a perpetual stick shoved up their rather unfeeling asses? These people are assholes to the point where they'd throw a child in foster care who has no one else to take care of her. The potential buyers probably took one look at the bylaws and said "fuck that!"

[Hepburn]

73. If the grandparents leave....the child leaves with them.

Who is pushing for foster care?

So...what if 80% of the home in there suddenly has a grade school child living there? Is that fair to those who bought based on it being a Seniors only development?

[Seldona]

95. Thank you.

As I read the abhorrent responses in this thread, I had to make sure I hadn't accidentally went to another site. I am shocked at the amount of people that would have this child put into foster care because of the discriminatory rules of some development board.

The people that are making an issue out of a child living in someone else's home are pathetic. Why do people sign on for this ridiculous bullshit?

I wonder how the tone of those posts would have changed had this been an age discrimination case against someone elderly? They would be screaming from the rafters. Poor kids, having to be around those old cranks who would rather see a child in a foster home than hear kids play in the someone else's yard.

I am sure they all line up on Sundays mornings to compare clothing as well. Makes me want to puke in my soup.

[CTyankee]

105. You and me both. I am repulsed by this whole thing.

I understand about covenants and all, but this is a human situation with one's blood relative. What kind of people are we in this country?

[liberalhistorian]

144. There's a decidedly strong and growing anti-child

faction on here, and it's getting more and more disturbing. As if it's a child's fault that it exists and as if children have complete control over their lives and what happens to them and only exist to bother people. Disgusting.

[jenniferj]

165. Those Grandparents want to get out...

They may not have had much when they inherited the house and if they go much lower in price, they may struggle to find somewhere else. It must be heartbreaking for them to be surrounded by such cruel, small-minded people that would rather hurt and distrupt a child than show compassion for her. If they are able to give her all that love and security under those circumstances, under that pressure they deserve a medal.

[NashVegas]

203. People Are Siding With Other Homeowners Who Chose to Live There for Specific Reasons

And the couple in question can always RENT out their place until the market rebounds.

[jberryhill]

47. I moved into an all-white neighborhood, too!

And then THEY spoiled it.

Children are humans.

[PeaceNikki]

70. They're trying to get out.

The place is for sale. Right now the issue at hand is whether she's forced into foster care until it sells. How is that the right decision for anyone?

[drm604]

98. More unfair than forcing a 6 year old child to go live with strangers?

Yes let's be fair to all of those child haters and the hell with the happiness and well being of a 6 year old girl (who, by the way, didn't enter into an agreement with anyone about anything, but that's okay, let's destroy her life because of what her grandparents signed).

[Lorien]

103. Authoritarianism rules

We need a return to consideration, thoughtfulness and consciousness in this country. ALL rules can be bent if the situation requires it. Saying "the rules are the rules, no matter how inhumane" is what brownshirts do. What kind of a society do you want to live in?

[cynatnite]

106. Damn straight...fuck compassion...send the brat packing...

:sarcasm:

[LynneSin]

170. Sometimes you have to think of Common Sense and Compassion

:grr:

The Grandparents can't get the house sold and it looks like they are going to lose a big chunk of change just to feasible find a buyer. The girl has no other living relatives.

I think if the Grandparent w/ the child can maintain some sort of respect for those in the communities, let it slide until the grandparents can find a buyer who will take a fair price on the house, perhaps once the market rebounds.

There has to be a common ground to this without bankrupting the grandparents - the ONLY living relatives to this poor kid!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Why I hate home owner associatons

common sense is not a given in most of these organizations.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. This is a planned community for retirees, not a typical asshole HOA.

People buy into these communities SPECIFICALLY to avoid having young people around. What on Earth makes the couple at the center of this brouhaha think they are so special as to deserve no grief for breaking the rules?

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Not the article says this

but what if... something like what happened with a neighbor is at play here?

A neighbor of mine, in her late sixties, is raising her grand son, after mom died of breast cancer and dad was deemed not capable by the court.

I am sure you didn't think of this. But the point is, what if the kid MOVED IN well after they bought due to life happening. I guess foster care is best for the kid right?

[DemBones DemBones]

143. nadia, they did in fact live there before they took in the child.

there's no evidence they didn't intend to abide by the contract. but life happens, as you said.

[druidity33]

21. have they taken a vote?

The article doesn't say. But the retirement community my grandma lives in dotes on children. Everyone stops me when i walk by with my daughter. Also, these people didn't move in with the grand-daughter in tow. The child's mother dumped her on the Gparents because of a drug problem. They have been trying to sell the house and have not even been offered half of the 'market value'. Ever heard of having a little fucking Patience? If the Community really wants to get rid of them, they should offer to buy back the house themselves.

You are fucking cold and mean to insist a six year old should be sent to Foster care because some old people don't like children.

[imdjh]

43. This is not a settle area of law. As a rule, a retirement community is supposed to have some special

.... aspect which makes it legal for it to discriminate on the basis of age or family status. For example, in the 1980's many were exempt from code changes which would have been required if children lived there, ie width of balusters, and such.

This is a single family home community. It's hard to imagine there is anything uniquely senior citizen about it, but for some reason these rules have to be challenged one at a time.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

109. Why are you just making stuff up?

http://www.fhcsp.com/Laws/hop.html

You have no idea what you are talking about. Google Fair Housing Laws, Retirement Communities, Age discrimination, etc.

[imdjh]

117. Clearly I haven't stayed current, but your comment is not only rude but shows a

lack of intellect, as everything I was talking about was included in the article you linked to, and therefore was not "just making stuff up".

Edit to add: that the law permitting something doesn't make it the right thing to do. The law permits me to tell you to go fuck yourself, but that would be rude.

[Hepburn]

74. It's not the HOA...

...it's the CC&Rs that are covenants which run with the land.

The HOA has to enforce those covenants ~~ it's not a choice. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. CC&Rs can and are changed

Trust me we are fighting that battle...

Nothing says they are written in stone... also they can and do have exceptions

[Hepburn]

77. To Senior zoning laws?

Ummmmm....usually not. Those restrictions normally run with the land.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yes and if the judge has some cajones the process will start

[Hepburn]

81. LOL....

...not hardly ~~ the grandparents are being faced with an eviction due to 4 years of non-compliance with the CCRS. The grandparents are the defendants. Care to explain any viable legal theory under which the court can provide them the affirmative relief of altering the CCRs...or even NOT enforcing the CCRs against them...to allow the child to remain?

:eyes: LOL...

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. How the kid got there which was AFTER they moved in

Now I don't expect it since we all know placing the kid in the foster system is much better.

Oh and yes I despise HOA and what goes with them. FASCIST organizations the lot of them.

I know that once we can, and when we buy it will NOT be a condo... PERIOD.

And one reason, it crap like this.

Oh and I am no longer surprised that people in this country tolerate things like this. Why we have lost all sense of community... just one more symptom.

[Hepburn]

97. Yes....

...they signed an agreement which contained a term that persons under the age of 18 years may not live there. Everyone who lives in this development agreed to those rules in order to reside there. Senior housing usually has a higher value because of the age restrictions. Now they wish to change the rules and have an exception. So should everyone have an exception for one of the rules? Maybe mine should be that I no longer have to do the poo patrol if my dog shits on someone else's lawn. After all, after I moved in conditioned on my acceptance of the rules, my orthopedic problems became much worse and bending movements exacerbate my problems.

Or how about this: Should someone else suffer an economic hardship because they cannot sell their home because of the small child living in the immediate vicinity even tho it is a Seniors Community? Is that fair? People live in these developments because they do not wish to live by children.

I live in a Seniors Community because I do not wish to live by small children. Why should the rules be altered for one family over the objections of all others? I have trouble keeping my balance due to physical disabilities and being able to use a pool and a spa where children are not running around was a very important factor to me in deciding to make a major financial investment in a home located in a Seniors Community. I have orthopedic problems and the use of a pool and a spa offer me a good deal of relief for pain. Not having to balance that relief with a fear of being knocked over by a small, running child is an important consideration to me.

So...you do realize that if one child is allowed in residence, that is just the beginning.

[KamaAina]

145. Funny you should mention disability

in the arena of public housing, many developments were originally designated as "senior and disabled housing".

Then the senior lobby complained about all those disabled under-55s hanging around. And they prevailed.

Now those developments are seniors-only. People with disabilities have been forced to hit the bricks, just like the 6-year-old. And there's a huge shortage of affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities who are under age 55.

[Hepburn]

154. I have never heard this before....

...do you have any links to info about this? TIA...:hi:

[KamaAina]

157. Just recently, Ahh-nuld had to intervene in a similar situation

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-monrovia-evictions,0,46364.story

Responding to an article he read in the Los Angeles Times Thursday morning, Governor Schwarzenegger decided he had to do something for a group of physically or developmentally disabled people who faced eviction from an apartment complex that was supposed to be for "seniors only."...

The landlord blamed regulations banning anyone under 62-year-old from living in the apartment house designated for seniors only....

Schwarzenegger visited the complex Friday morning and was greeted by the smiling residents who were thankful for the governor's help. Citing the devotion of his sister-in-law (sic), Eunice Kennedy Shriver, to the disabled, Schwarzenegger said he had to do something.

Too bad he didn't "cite the devotion of his sister mother-in-law, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, to the disabled" when he was enacting those draconian cuts to disability service programs... :grr:

Also I know a woman with a disability in Hawai'i who is the last non-elderly resident of her entire complex; all the others moved out one by one and were replaced with seniors.

[Hepburn]

158. Wow....that is sad.

IMO, once someone is located in a residence, they cannot later change the rules as to that person remaining unless there are some real extenuating circumstances. That to me is wrong and I am glad Ah-nold did something. For example, if a disabled person moved in under the regs that existed at the time of the move, then he/she gets to stay. PERIOD. That seems only fair to me even if the building is later age restricted.

Kind of the reserve what I am seeing with the situation in the OP ~~ the grandparents want to change the rules or want an exception. Below I asked the question as to why the social worker at the time of the initial placement approved the residence. A seniors community is not a place a child can live. On a temporary basis with an agreement that the proposed guardian relocate the child's residence immediately, I can see that getting court approval. But this case is now years later and the placement has caused real problems. Seems that there was a screw up on the initial approval of the grandparents.

IMO, if the court and the social worker had done their jobs, the grandparents would have had to have moved years ago ~~ when the housing market was high. There never IMO would have been this problem.

[tammywammy]

171. From what I've read, when she first moved in

They were given over a year to find a solution (either the grandparents move with her or find someone else to take in the child). The grandparents were hoping the mom would be able to take her back, and then she didn't.

[damntexdem]

9. Such loving, caring people in that community.

And grandparents-raising-grandchildren is a rapidly-growing phenomenon, which means it will increasing become an issue for age-segregated communities.

[virgogal]

12. They probably ARE loving,caring people who raised their own

families and want a child-free life now.

Nothing wrong with that.

[imdjh]

40. What about their own grandkids? Are they so sure that they will never be called upon?

[virgogal]

42. Of course they're not sure,but would have to leave their current

residence for permanent care of the kids.

Nothing is sure,nothing.

[Posteritatis]

131. Not if they're specifically trying to evict the kid and only the kid, they aren't. (nt)

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. Oh the compassion............

1-They didn't hunt and trap their granddaughter so they could keep her.

2-Their daughter has serious problems, and couldn't keep the child.

3-The child doesn't run rampant in the streets making the other people who live there aware of her presence every minute.

4-They are trying to sell, and have marked down their unit.

So what would YOU do if faced with the same situation?

Tell your granddaughter that you're sorry, but she will have to go live with strangers?

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. dupe

[Sultana]

16. All those oldies are gonna kick the bucket anyways

:hide:

I hope that the grandparents and the girl can find another place to live.


Maybe someone should start building neighborhoods where you have to be under 55 to live there:P

[imdjh]

31. They are a bunch of old drunks who don't want to feel guilty for being shitty grandparents.

That's really what it is. If they enforce the rule against kids, then they get to limit the amount of time their grandkids come to visit, and avoid being parents and grandparents. They want to be guests in the lives of their family members.

[bluestateguy]

20. Unfortunately, they seem to have the law on their side

As I read the story it sounds like the family trying to do the right thing and leave by selling their home, but it won't sell because of the economy. But if they signed a contract that says no children allowed then I don't see what they can do.

Having said that, these old fogies running their "retirement community" are being crass and insensitive.

[SeekerBlue]

22. I can't WAIT to be 55 so I can live in an adults-only complex

I think it's discriminatory against ME that I have to wait so long to be free of late night crying, incessant poolside shrieking, and the general noisy mess that comes with resident kids. I don't want any, and I shouldn't have to suffer their annoyances in my own home. But, there you go, only those 55+ can claim this luxury.

If I had any money, I'd buy their place!

[bluestateguy]

55. The loudest, most annoying people I have ever lived near were 18-25

Inconsiderate, frequently drunk or stoned, loud, parties on all days of the week and messy as hell.

[liberalhistorian]

146. Hey, the DU anti-child brigade should be sending

you a certificate of membership soon, be sure to sign it with "honor." :eyes:

I'm truly sorry that children exist only to bother you. They obviously have complete control over their lives, including being born. Believe me, when I was raising my son, I would very much have wished that there were a place for people like you where WE wouldn't have to be subjected to YOUR miserly tight-assed crankiness.

[JoeyT]

26. Wow. Did we use up all our compassion on other issues today?

This is just like that one time when our homeowners association decided they didn't want foreigners buying houses in our neighborhood, and the activist judge made us let them. But judging from a lot of the comments y'all are on our side, right? Right?! (I shouldn't have to point out this is sarcastic hyperbole. I will anyway.)

This is no different from any other discriminatory practice by a homeowners association and should be slapped down as such. I don't know if it will be or not, but it should be.
Good grief, imagine the outrage if there were a community that kicked people out when they hit 55. Or if a couple had a parent that was disabled and had to move in with them were kicked out because anyone over 50 wasn't allowed by homeowners association rules. Y'all would go nuts, and your outrage would be well directed.
So how is this any different?

[QC]

28. Compassion? here? You must be new in these parts. n/t

[redqueen]

177. I agree with you...

but there are also 'adults only' apartment complexes, so... apparently this is a common enough sentiment. Strikes me as extremely sad... but oh well.

[SoCalDem]

30. Actually, this is happening more and more, but the community may prevail

and here's why..

YOU may LOVE, ADORE, CHERISH your grandchild, and circumstances may hve forced you into raising them, BUT

retirement communities are little enclaves set up PURPOSELY to exclude children.

People often pay MORE to retire in a community free of bicycles, skateboards, tricycles, kids breaking sprinkler heads, wearing paths in lawns, petty vandalism, and of course, the NOISE.

They all put up with "visits", since most of them have their own grandkids/great-grandkids over occasionally, but they do NOT want kids living there full-time.

and

it's not all that fair to the little kid either.

If grandparents living in retirement communities are called upon to raise a grandchild, moving may just be another feature they have to consider.

As much as it pains them, they may just have to rent out their place, and move to a more child-friendly community.

[Alameda]

32. Isn't segregation illegal?

Something that really bothers me about any so called Adult, Senior, or whatever living facility is the fact that they are another way to segregate people. We seem to be going back. I'm a senior and I much prefer living in an integrated community. I feel they are more healthy.

[imdjh]

37. That's the consolation here. With any luck they'll sell their house to retired black rappers.

Hopefully the Stottlers will sell their house to retired rapper Bobby G'dawg and his manager and song writer Miss Charmaigne who will drive up and down the street in a pimped out Chevelle blasting hip hop remakes of Motown classics as well as have Bible study on the front porch three times a week.

[EOTE]

39. What delicious irony that would be.

What?!? You mean there's no retired black rappers restriction too? Gaaaahhhhh!!! Is there no place where we can be crotchety, old and intolerant in peace?

[sudopod]

175. You know, I wonder if there are any 55+ rappers of a

non-Caucasian persuasion who could be interested in doing this?

Shenanigans for a good cause, IMHO.

:D

[kiva]

34. There's some real playing of the facts here;

the 2007 article states that the grandparents had agreed in April 2005 that they would be in compliance with the rules by October 2006 - in other words, the association gave them a year and a half to find a solution.

They say they thought the child's mother would become responsible enough to take the girl despite the fact she had two other children already living with other relatives.

The Huff post article says the grandparents lowered the price of their home from $225,000 to $129,000, but the 2005 article says they initially priced the house at $189,000. And, despite the implication that the housing market crashed before they decided to sell, the timing is off.

And finally, why did the grandparents choose to buy a house in a retirement community? Could it be because they didn't want to live around children? But now, because of their situation, they want the rules changed.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to live in one of these communities, but if you choose to do so, don't be surprised when you are expected to follow the rules.

[imdjh]

38. They inherited the house. But they do have one thing to explain. Why daycare?

If Jimmie Stottler is disabled and can't work, then why is the little girl in daycare and not being watched by him?

[DemBones DemBones]

66. He may be too ill to look after a young child all day.

The best-behaved young kids have a lot of energy and ask a lot of questions. The grandfather has congestive heart failure and liver disease and other health problems, probably has to take it pretty easy.

[Alameda]

44. If you read the article you would see.......................

"Stottler said she inherited her house at the Lakes four years ago from her parents."...."The Stottlers' plan was to give Kimberly back to her mother, but her mother took off, said Judie Stottler. They decided to try to move and take Kimberly with them."

...........but they can't sell the property now because the market is down...........

In other words...this is an exceptional situation.

I rather suspect it has some class discrimination aspects to it as well. After all, they did not purchase the property, they only inherited it. Given their situation, they would not have been able to have bought it.

[Egalitariat]

113. If they inherited the property, they could sell it at any price and make money

[Ian David]

46. They should make each member of the community personally tell the girl to her face...

... why they want her to leave.

[Mariana]

67. They probably wouldn't hesitate for a second.

I'm sure the kid knows the neighbors hate her, and no doubt she feels personally responsible for her grandparents' problems, too. Kids tend to blame themselves in situations like this.

[Jkid]

50. I don't like the situation.

The grandparents took custody of the child because his mother has a chronic drug problem. The grandparents knew that they can't have children in their home, but they're the only family she knows. Life happens. The fact that their grandparents are taking care of her is the best solution than sending her to foster care. From what I heard, Florida has one of the worst situtations of foster care in the nation.

If a civil judge decides she has to be evicted, it will go down in history as the first eviction of a minor.

[Feron]

54. Selfish assholes.

Whatever happened to compassion in this country? Too many people have the I got mine, fuck you mentality.

I understand that there are adults that prefer to live in a child-free community. Fine. However I don't see the harm in allowing this one exception due to extenuating circumstances. It's not like the family hasn't tried. As long as the girl isn't disruptive, I don't see how one child is that big of a problem.

[Confusious]

59. Why have Americans become such assholes to each other?... eom

[TransitJohn]

60. Yet another reason why buying ANY property with covenents attached is fucking stupid.

That is all.

[Hepburn]

76. All property has covenants which run with the land in some nature.

What do you think zoning laws are? :shrug:

[TransitJohn]

78. Zoning laws are zoning laws.

Covenants are covenants. Big difference. You can argue that their effects are similar, though.

[Hepburn]

83. If covenants run with the land....

...they are basically an extension of the zoning which applies thereto.

[TransitJohn]

111. No they're not.

Covenants are agreements between landowners. Zoning laws are duly enacted laws. Again, you can argue that their effects are the same, but you can't say that covenants are zoning laws. They're a completely different thing. And I still say buying property with covenants is stupid.

[Hepburn]

124. Reading is fundamental,

Where did I say that a covenant had the same etiology as a zoning law? Covenants are more strictly interpreted by the courts ~~ so while they may have similar consequences as a zoning law, they are not as easy to get around. At least that is what I have seen where I practiced law. And you?

[hunter]

84. Get a clue, old folks...

It's not the kids depressing your property values, it's you.

Not many people want to live in an enclave of inflexible, intolerant, cold hearted lizards.

I'd suggest the community make an exception for this girl, change the community's bylaws, or simply purchase the family's home so they can move.

Purchasing the family's home is probably the best course of action if they don't want to change the nature of their community. It avoids bad press that will further decrease their own property values, it's cheaper than an extended legal battle, and maybe even makes them look like nice people someone might want to have as neighbors.

But personally, I can't imagine living in a segregated community of any kind. Too many white ass baby-boomers like myself can really drag a neighborhood down.

[DemBones DemBones]

92. Your ideas are good -- see how you like mine,

in post below. Should have called it "how to get at tight-ass white baby boomers," and, yes, I am a white baby boomer myself. :D

[Dorian Gray]

89. Wow....

what assholes at that retirement community.

[DemBones DemBones]

90. I don't see how one child in a single family home, as

opposed to a condo or retirement building, can be that much of a problem to the neighbors, especially as she's in day-care all freaking day.

I'm guessing that the home she inherited is their only real asset or grandma wouldn't be washing dishes for a living, earning $18,000 a year. Grandpa is too sick to work, gets no disability benefits. Think they've got pension plans? Medical insurance?

If the courts won't allow the little girl to stay there, I suppose they'll have to rent their house out and move to a neighborhood that allows children. Managing rental properties can be a real headache, but the grandmother says they will give up the house before they give up the child.

What if we all write to Oprah and ask her to buy the house and give it to some nice black senior citizens who have lots of relatives and friends who'll visit frequently? Then the heartless old folks will be trying to sell their houses as fast as they can and whining about getting hit in the pocketbooks, wishing they'd let the child stay.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Hepburn]

130. So what is the answer to the next family that wants to move in and there is a minor child?

Only one child allowed?

[DemBones DemBones]

134. the answer to them would be 'no' because the contract

specifies nobody under 55.

this couple had to take in a grandchild after they moved into their house. the neighbors would have preferred the child go into the foster care system, which is very sad.

[Hepburn]

153. The grandparents could rent their home and move, right?

Please provide a link to any article wherein there is a quote from any resident of the Lakes that the child should go into foster care.

And in response to your theory: All the resident would have to do is agree to the rules, move into the Senior Community and then later move in a minor child. That child would be in the same legal position relative to the rules as in the present case and thereafter then there could be a claim of age discrimination made because the exception was made in regard to a prior resident. So IMO your theory does not fly because once an exception is made, then it applies to all parties in like and/or similar classes. And, for example, under the UCL laws in Calif, the refusal to treat all residents equally could lead to horrendous sanctions against the HOA and the residents.

[Danger Mouse]

107. What a bunch of the compassionless, heartless, seflish, tightfisted, cruel, petty jerks.

Seriously. :puke:
This story pisses me off incredibly. God forbid somebody in their family has such a need and is met with such absolute scorn and heartlessness.

[tammywammy]

108. Why don't they try and just rent the house and move? n/t

[buzzycrumbhunger]

110. This is everyday stuff in FL

I remember visiting someone in a crappy over-55 trailer park when my daughter was maybe 7. She was bored sitting in that stuffy tin can and I gave her permission to wander around the yard. In 15 minutes, she was back, complaining that there were too many creepy neighbors glaring out their windows at her, and some old coot had even come out to hassle her about how she didn't belong there and he hoped her visit wasn't going to be too long because he paid a fortune to be free of other people's kids. WTF? She was catching lizards around the hibiscus, not shrieking or throwing rocks through windows.

Most interesting to me is that these places never outlaw yappy dogs or old men who insist on parading their hairy manboobs around the neighborhood. :thumbsdown:

[rasputin1952]

115. There are rules, and there are "rules"...

this 6 year old girl, who has known only her Grandparents as her "parents" falls under the "rules" aspect of the situation. There will always be a few who will find ways to make the reasons to make others lives miserable. For some 5 years, the G'Parents have been trying to rectify the situation, dropping the price of their home $89,000.

Who suffers, the 6 year old obviously, the G'Parents....and who benefits....knuckledragging thugs that deserve to live in boxes. I am sickened.

[krabigirl]

118. What a bunch of jerks. Old or young, jerks are jerks. Selfish assholes.

[midnight armadillo]

125. The Greatest Generation motto: I got mine, so FUCK YOU

Wait til the Baby Boomers hit this age bracket, the displays of selfishness and narcissism will stagger the imagination.

[Hepburn]

133. Here is a consideration you might have overlooked:

Most seniors are on fixed incomes ~~ which have not kept pace with inflation to say the least. To protect them from losing their homes, many areas have enacted rent control laws to protect the elderly. To qualify for the rent control, the development MUST qualify as a Senior Community. The general rules are, at least in California, that 80% of the residents MUST be over the age of 55 years and ALL residence must be over the age of 18 years.

So you call it "displays of selfishness and narcissism?" Losing one's home because the rents and fees are raised 10 fold ~~ that is something that is a nasty thing to protect against. So, let the child in and price many seniors out of their homes. So much better than having the rules complied with, right?

Sheesh... :eyes:

[REP]

140. There's a child involved: no critical thought allowed!

It doesn't matter that 55+ communities are legally protected; it doesn't matter they've had over 5 years to sell the house and move, nor do the rights of the other residents matter - there's a widdle chyuld inthe story, so all critical thinking is lost in a mush of maudlin sentimentality.

[Hepburn]

149. I agree with your sentiment...

...some seem to have the opinion that everyone should be harmed so that the grandparents can violate rules to which they agreed.

[DemBones DemBones]

148. that's a red herring. the 'great lakes' is not a rental community so

there is no rent control to be lost. if you read the info, you'll see that this senior couple is low income and too young for social security or medicare.

maybe that's the real issue here, that someone who doesn't quite measure up to the neighborhood standards, a woman who washes dishes for 18K a year, inherited her parents' house and moved in, along with her disabled husband who can't work, the lazy bum. maybe the neighbors were looking for a way to force her out as soon as she moved in, before she took in her granddaughter.

[Hepburn]

150. There are supplemental income sources that apply to Seniors besides...

...rent control. There are grants from the federal government, for example, for home improvements, which apply to Seniors Communities.

[izzybeans]

160. This is an owner occupied home. Rent control has nothing to do with this.

Our right to privacy can be invaded by corporations. People in this thread applaud that, at the expense of a child and her family.

But of course critical thought means to act like a parrot and toe the company line on this one. Whatever the CCRC company wants, goes right? It's amazing what an irrational hatred of children will do to so called progressives. It turned them into corporate sycophants in this case. Anything to live a life free of a child's laugh, right? "Yes sir boss, I'll evict my own granddaughter from my home. Anything you say. What's that? I'm sorry I couldn't sell it I've been trying to comply with the company orders for a few years now. She'll be gone by morning. Never you worry, we'll leave out the back."

[redqueen]

178. "It's amazing what an irrational hatred of children will do to so called progressives."

As evidenced in the cheering for Sendak when he said anyone who thinks his movie is too scary can 'go to hell' and that those kids should go home and 'wet the bed'.

[Hepburn]

208. Rent control based on a qualified senior community~~

~~ a community does NOT qualify for senior benefits if it does not meet all the necessary elements. One of the elements, at least in California, is that there must not be any resident under the age of 18 years. You missed the point that ALL elements must be met. So even if owner occupied, there is a resident ~~ the child, who is under the age of 18 years and she would disqualify the entire community from any benefits and grants allowed to senior communities.

[DefenseLawyer]

128. Over the line!

This isn't Nam, Smokey, there are rules.

[redqueen]

181. *roffle*

Love that flick.

[Canuckistanian]

135. Apparently, "It takes a village" to expel a child

There are some seriously fucked-up people in Largo, FLA.

[Romulox]

147. Keep the young 'uns out, and the Social Security checks (+$250!) coming!

:puke:

[WI_DEM]

151. Poor little girl, but then she probably should be somewhere where she can play with kids her own age

but it's a shame that there is so little compassion in that "retirement" community.

[Hepburn]

156. Serious question: Why would a Social Worker approve a Seniors Community as the permanent...

...residence for an infant or small child?

When I practiced law, I did a lot of grandparent guardianships. One of the requirements for the court to approve the placement of the minor was a home visit by the Dept of Social Services. I cannot imagine that other jurisdictions do not have a mandatory requirement like this.

So...how did a Seniors Community with age restrictions get approved by the court as a placement for the child in the first place? That would not have been approved in the jurisdiction where I practiced ~~ maybe as a temporary arrangement until the proposed guardian(s) relocated to a place which was an appropriate residence.

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

163. The home it's self as well as the caregivers were likely up to snuff

The HOA should be smacked down and in doing so a serious smackdown of all such contracts. They are discriminating against a person and that should be illegal just like race, orientation, sex, or handicapped status.

Further, these bogus agreements ought to be only the agreement of the owner that made it and associations should be required to renegotiate with any and each individual new owners however they come to be in possession of said property but the purchase of the property should be utterly and completely separate from any association's desires. If these folks want the bells and whistles of zoning then they had best incorporate and take on the hassles that come with that step.

[Hepburn]

206. The home is NOT up to snuff ~~

those under a certain age are specifically prohibited as residents.

[high density]

164. I'm surprised these minimum age bylaws haven't been successfully challenged yet.

My grandparents own a townhouse in a similar sort of community. People under 55 can't stay for more than 30 days. They have a couple of sons and daughters under 55, and if one of them inherited the property they wouldn't be able to live in it! Ridiculous. If I started a housing development that only allowed people under 35, I'm sure AARP would sue me in an instant.

[TheKentuckian]

168. Of course they would and rightfully so but then much of generation douchenozzle doesn't get

hypocrisy and if they did they'd ignore it and pat themselves on the back for being champions of the rules.

[Hepburn]

207. In Calif, if the party is ON TITLE and a resident, but under the age of...

...55 years but over 18 years of age, he/she cannot be removed from the residence upon the death of the elder party which qualified under the age rules.

[TexasObserver]

172. Her grandparents have been irresponsible for 5 years.

For 5 years, they have stayed there in violation of the community rules - rules they readily agreed to follow when they moved in. They could have sold and moved any time during the boom, but they were too pigheaded, too selfish, to do that. No, they had to make the community conform to them.

No one is stopping them from moving out so they can remain with their grand daughter. They created their own mess, and now want to cry to the public for sympathy. I have none. They should have sold and moved out four years ago.

The following is from a story written two and a half years ago:

She and her husband understand the Lakes has rules prohibiting permanent residents younger than 18. The child, her daughter's daughter, has lived with them for three years.

Soon after they took in Kimberly, the association objected. In April 2005, Judie Stottler signed a mediation agreement saying her family would comply with the Lakes' rules by Oct. 1, 2006.


http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/01/Northpinellas/Grandparents_sued_for.shtml

It's pretty clear that the grandparents have been playing the media on this for years. If they had wanted to sell their home, they would have. The only way to avoid selling their home in 2004-2007 would be to grossly overprice it, so as to keep buyers away.

[tammywammy]

176. And the community brought this up when she first moved in

It's not like they're just now bringing it up. One article I read, the community and the grandparents agreed to over a year deadline for the grandparents to either move (with her) or find another family to take her in. The grandparents were hoping that their daughter would want to take the child back, she didn't.

[TexasObserver]

180. That's correct. First they brought it to the grandparents attention.

Then they mediatated and reached an agreement giving the grandparents a lengthy period to sell the place or get into compliance. This has been going on five years, and for five years the grandparents have claimed they're trying to sell. Well, if you can't sell a home in the boom in Florida, you're overpricing it. They overpriced it throughout the boom, now they cry because the boom is gone and they didn't sell during it.

These grandparents have created this situation, and they act as if they didn't, that this just fell into their laps. The baby did fall into their laps. The responsible thing was to comply with the rules, sell the place, and find a new one. What kind of surrogate parent wants to raise a little one in a community where they can't get out and run and yell and play? These grandparents are very selfish, and not thinking about their granddaughter when keeping her in this community. Move somewhere she can play outside and play with other kids.

[Pithlet]

191. Wow. It's amazing how someone can just twist and twist the facts

To cram it to fit their viewpoint. You really are talented, I must say. The fact that they've had this place on the market for years, with price adjustments, means absolutely nothing to you. They should have sold it during the boom, and therefore that negates all other points. Except that during that period they'd reached an agreement with the community that they were going to give them a year to find other arrangements. At the time they felt that their daughter would be able to take her back. But that doesn't quite fit in with your view of them. So, just ignore that. Twist, twist, twist...


What it boils down to is the community allowing them to keep her until they sell would not be the same thing as allowing an exception to the rule, because they aren't asserting their rights to stay there as permanent residents. They are being cold and callous in pushing this. Plain and simple. And if more communities act in this manner, as someone who previously supported them I will join the fight in banning their right to exist.

[TexasObserver]

192. That's false. YOU are attempting to override the clear facts with bullshit.

They are in violation of their agreement, and the association has tried to get them to comply for five years. For five years, they've lied, they've said they'd sell but haven't. For five years they placed a price on their house too high to sell it. That means they're asking too much, and not accidently. It means they sat on their house the entire boom, and refused to put a price on it that would sell it.

As for you being offended and joining the fight to ban the existence of such communities and associations with such rights, knock yourself out. Go to your State Rep and your State Senator and tell them of your opposition. Go see your congressperson. They'll be polite and write you off as crazy. Let's see, they can serve those seniors who vote in every election, or they can worry about trying to please someone who doesn't understand home ownership. Tough choice, eh?

[Pithlet]

193. They're asking too much? Now who's the one overriding clear facts with bullshit?

They were asking too much. According to whom? You're intimately accquainted with the market in that area, are you to make that call?

And again. During the boom, they had an agreement with the association. The ASSOCIATION agreed to it! They didn't have to, but they did. So they themselves contributed to how the facts came together in this case. Again with ignoring that fact. Perhaps if they said "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to sell now. We're not waiting" maybe this would have been avoided, hmm? True, they were trying to be flexible. But you still can't ignore the fact it contributed to this outcome! They shouldn't either.

You know, if this were a case of the grandparents saying screw it, this is our house and we have a right to live here, then yes, they are absolutely responsible for the outcome and it's their fault the little girl is facing foster care. But they aren't. So this is 100% on the community. And they are absolute monsters for pushing it. Bottom line, if a grandparent says screw it, I'm not leaving, it's on them. If an association says Screw it, we don't care you can't sell, grandkid has to go. Then the evil's on the association.

If more cases like this happen, no one will look crazy in that fight. With the economic collapse, more of these communities will face situations like these. If they can't find a more compassionate and humane way to deal with it? They will face ire. Because no one, not even state and local governments, want more children in the system. Bank on it.

[TexasObserver]

194. You refuse to accept the facts or the law.

Doesn't matter. They lose. They should lose.

They agreed to follow the rules. They agreed to get out three years ago. They haven't honored their agreements - any of them.

If they don't want to leave, they can stay, but the kid has to go. She can go to other relatives. She can go to foster care. But it's not the problem of the Homeowners Association where she goes.

[Pithlet]

196. You couldn't refute a thing I said, I see.

Yes, they agreed to get out. The crux of my point, you see? They aren't refusing to leave. The fact is they can't because of the crappy housing market. It is the problem if the homeowner's association in that the fact they're pushing it could possibly result in a little girl going to foster care. See, the ends do matter. It became their problem when they decided to ignore the mitigating circumstances.

She can go to foster care, you say? Duh. Why do you think this story is eliciting outrage? They can just pay for their own healthcare... They can just feed themselves... This is no different than the insurance companies who use the excuse that they have to make a profit and that's why they deny people's claims. After all, they have a duty to their shareholders. And it's legal.

[TexasObserver]

197. Your poutrage is the result of your confusion and ignorance.

And it's obvious you're not going to get past either of those.

[Pithlet]

198. I love it when I win an argument.... n/t

[TexasObserver]

200. You love it when you sink into self delusion.

If you were capable of understanding the laws underlying this community's structure, you'd understand why this kid's grandparents will lose. Instead, you do all your thinking with your emotions.

[Pithlet]

201. I'm not the one who resorted to name calling and using the cute new insults.

Poutrage. I particularly loved that. But now I'm sinking to self delusion. Man. I really did get under your skin, didn't I? It's easy to do when the opponent's got nothing.

I thought I was done, but I'll address the your law comment. Why yes. The law is the underlying community structure. Without laws we have anarchy, of course. But is it absolutely infallible? Of course not. And since when were neighborhood communities and HOAs the absolute arbiter of legal perfection? Like I said. Insurance companies are well within their legal rights to deny claims, aren't they? Do you think we shouldn't be doing something about that right now?

Yes. Thinking with my emotions. Because everyone knows that foster care is a peachy place to be. Why wouldn't anyone want to tell this community that maybe they should rethink their position on this. Really.

[TexasObserver]

202. Please calm down.

Take a deep breath. You know how you get when you lose your temper.

[LanternWaste]

174. Don't know which is sadder

Don't know which is sadder-- the elevation of policy and procedure (Pomp & Circumstance without the fanfare, the melody or the metre) over that of a child, or a particular and minimal number of posters on this thread.

[Pithlet]

190. Both are sad. And I feel sad that I"m not even shocked there would be responses defending it.

It would be one thing if the couple were trying to assert their right to stay and refused to leave and there weren't other circumstances leading to this unusual situation. But that's not the case. I've support the right for these communities to exist, but if that support leads to situations like this? I have to rethink that position.

[JVS]

187. "She has two older children who live with other relatives."

Time to call up those relatives.

[TexasObserver]

188. Here's the case for the association.

A developer sees that many senior citizens are ready to move out of the houses where they raised a family and into smaller quarters in a community that is designed FOR THEM. This developer knows that these seniors want to have sidewalks they don't share with kids on bikes or skateboards. They don't want to have to worry about running over someone's kid every time they leave the house. They want a community that allows them to live comfortably in their senior years.

The developer is selling the buyers a packaged deal, and that deal includes COVENANTS which are adopted by the developer and mandatory for each homeowner to accept as a condition for owning and living in the homes in the community. This tight control of occupancy is part of what each buyer is purchasing when they buy into the community.

All buyers sign the agreement to follow the covenants. A change of the circumstances of the owners does not alter the rule or its applicability. Think about it. Most of these seniors WANT a rule that says their kids can't move their grandkids in with the grandparents. Most of them WANT to be able to tell family "sorry, but we have a rule that prohibits kids living here." They bought into the community to be in a place without kids living there and dominating the landscape.

The grandparents have had this little girl for five years. If they had sold in 2004-2005, when they first got her, she would never remember this house. Instead of their doing the right thing five years ago, they have repeatedly agreed to follow the rules, only to breach that agreement. Instead of moving her into a community where kids abound, they've kept her in one where she has no friends.

These grandparents have been pigheaded and selfish. They could have sold at the peak of the market, but never priced their house right to sell, or it would have sold. If they won't sell the house to keep their grand daughter, that's their choice.

[appleannie1]

195. I am certainly glad kids are allowed in my neighborhood. They make me feel young again.

[Bettie]

205. And I bet they love you!

We have a condo building with some older ladies next door to our house. One of them HATES our kids just because they exist. Of course, she bought a condo next door to a 4 bedroom house with a big yard, but never expected kids to be there.

The other ladies have great fun with my three boys. They help with weeding in gardens and generally amuse several of the ladies.

Just the one is nasty to kids (and, strangely enough, everyone else).

I'm glad there are people like you Annie.

[ddeclue]

199. Chalk another one up to Florida's HOA Nazis...

:argh: