# HOA goes too far IMO



## TUGBrian (Oct 22, 2009)

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerder...t-community-tries-to-evict-six-year-old-girl/


this is pretty much unbelievable


----------



## SherryS (Oct 22, 2009)

Saw a film clip on the local Tampa station a few nights ago.  We thought that this was a bit much, considering the housing situation everyone is in.  Grandparents are trying to sell, but are unable to do so.  I would think that the grandparents should be given credit for trying to raise their grandaughter!


----------



## ricoba (Oct 22, 2009)

Since I am turning 55 next year, we have begun to consider the possibility of one of the 55+ communities, not because we hate kids, but we like a lot of the amenities they offer folks.

This is a difficult situation - I just wonder if the HOA could buy the families home as a way to help the family move on and also keep their bylaws in place?


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 22, 2009)

ricoba said:


> Since I am turning 55 next year, we have begun to consider the possibility of one of the 55+ communities, not because we hate kids, but we like a lot of the amenities they offer folks.
> 
> This is a difficult situation - I just wonder if the HOA could buy the families home as a way to help the family move on and also keep their bylaws in place?



Hopefully airing this story will bring some buyers to the table, though I'm not sure this community is painting themselves in such a wonderful light that people are going to rush to live there.  

But, to see the other side of the story, 4 years ago when they moved their granddaughter into their home, the housing market in Florida was booming.  They knew the by-laws and knew that it wasn't going to change, so why they did not sell then, make a decent profit, and then move to a neighborhood where this little girl could actually have some friends is beyond me.   At this point they need to just find a decent renter and move out.  Some by-laws can be changed, some are even meant to be changed, but changing the by-laws to allow kids, well, that's why those people moved to their 55+ community anyway (and no, I am not 55, or plus).


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 22, 2009)

I wouldnt want to have neighbors who would rather kick a 6 year old girl out of her grandparents house and force her into foster care...vs try to actually help out and fix the problem.

If i were those folks, id go print out the HOA rules for lawn/landscaping/home modifications etc and walk around to each house and make my neighbors lives miserable for doing this.

after all, there is obviously zero tolerance for bylaws!


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 22, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> I wouldnt want to have neighbors who would rather kick a 6 year old girl out of her grandparents house and force her into foster care...vs try to actually help out and fix the problem.
> 
> If i were those folks, id go print out the HOA rules for lawn/landscaping/home modifications etc and walk around to each house and make my neighbors lives miserable for doing this.
> 
> after all, there is obviously zero tolerance for bylaws!



I'm pretty sure Leland's hat alone is in direct violation of SOME law. Somewhere.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 22, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> after all, there is obviously zero tolerance for bylaws!




But Brian, if they make allowances in this case, who's to say another homeowner won't challenge the HOA on some other issue?  Or a third one?  It's a very slippery slope to make exceptions, even if it seems the HOA is being heartless.  As has been stated, the g'parents knew the rules when they brought the g'daughter to live with them.  They should have moved out a long time ago.

I'm on the Board of the HOA in my neighborhood, and we often get challenges to the covenants from homeowners who think the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them.  The problem with allowing one household to "get away with it" means that establishes legal grounds for other homeowners to do the same.  Over time, the HOA loses their control of the conduct in the neighborhood, and there's no telling how far it can go.

In a court of law, if/when it comes to that, if an HOA is attempting to enforce covenants against a homeowner, all the homeowner needs to do is prove to the court that the HOA did not enforce ALL the rules equitably toward ALL members of the Association.  If even ONE homeowner "got away with it", the HOA has no legal leg to stand on.  The court will find in favor of the homeowner, and the HOA can literally be forced to dissolve.

In the case of this particular HOA, if they let the g'daughter live there, then every other homeowner who wants to have a child live there could do the same.  Those homeowners who specifically chose that neighborhood because there WERE no kids would then have legal grounds to sue the HOA, and on and on it goes.

I feel for the g'parents in this case, but I have to agree with the HOA.  Yes, putting the girl in Foster care seems extreme, and another resolution should be found.  But allowing her to live in that neighborhood is going to be a larger problem in the long run, if only because of the other residents in the neighborhood.

Dave


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 22, 2009)

if the grandparents were making no effort to move or rectify the situation, id agree 100%

however given that they have reduced their home price nearly 100k (off a 2xx original asking price) and still dont have buyers...what other solution do they have.

all in all I feel confident the court will rule in favor of the grandparents however, as the right of the child is paramount to some neighborhood covenants.

I just cannot believe that people would recommend a solution that removes the child from willing and capable FAMILY guardians...to be placed with the state or foster care.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 22, 2009)

The one reason that the HOA is being so hardline can probably be found in Dave's post about the necessity for zero tolerance in HOA rules.  IF the HOA takes this all the way to court and it's ruled that the child can stay with her grandparents in their home, the Court has the authority to put stipulations on the ruling that the house must remain on the market and the grandparents must move when/if a reasonable offer is made on the property.

Such stipulations would be beyond the scope and control of the HOA, which means they're effectively absolved from the responsibility of allowing a covenant bypass.  It's the only way that subsequent petitions for bypasses could still be denied by the HOA, and the petitioners could not make a claim of such prior action by the HOA.

I agree, though, it's a very sad situation all around.  It's too bad that the family has come up against this awful real estate market, because what the Court considers "reasonable" in this market may mean a loss for the owners.  But at least it wouldn't put them in the street or their granddaughter in foster care.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 22, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> I just cannot believe that people would recommend a solution that removes the child from willing and capable FAMILY guardians...to be placed with the state or foster care.



I completely agree.  But then, this _IS _Florida, where human rights aren't taken very seriously.  Nothing would surprise me.

As I said, I'm sure something appropriate will be worked out.  Now that the media has it, there's no telling where this will end.  I'm just glad it doesn't involve a six year old and a homemade balloon...  

Dave


----------



## m61376 (Oct 22, 2009)

Wow- I understand HOA bylaws, but what happened to humanity and compassion? Clearly the grandparents have taken reasonable steps to sell the property but, given the current economy, it is understandable that they aren't meeting with success and likely will not in the near future. I certainly hope the judge has more of a heart than the Board of this community; I don't see how a judge can rule to evict a 6 year old and place her in foster care when she has loving grandparents to raise her. It is a sad commentary when people value rules more than the welfare of a child.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 22, 2009)

Actually Susan makes a great point: If a court orders the HOA to let the girl stay, then the HOA is off the hook. And that may well be how this plays out.

The HOA side of things isn't about compassion or the lack of it.  It's about enforcing legally-binding rules that are recorded parts of the deeds to the homes in that neighborhood.  The rules in effect may be completely opposite of what the HOA Board members in that neighborhood _want _to do on a personal level.  It's more about what the HOA is legally _BOUND _to do.

Those of you who have an HOA in your neighborhood should look at your purchase documents.  You may be surprised to see you signed off on the HOA and CC&Rs for your neighborhood, and that it's a recorded portion of the deed you signed.  You may be subject to rules and regulations you didn't realize were even there.  

Dave


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 22, 2009)

oh I have no doubt there are some fantastic little items in HOA bylaws for nearly every community that most if not all people never read when purchasing the home.

However in those cases,  while the owner is not immune to the laws...if they can prove they are actually doing all they can to correct the violation...but still are unable to do so is WAY different than someone just telling the HOA to go pound sand.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 22, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> oh I have no doubt there are some fantastic little items in HOA bylaws for nearly every community that most if not all people never read when purchasing the home.
> 
> However in those cases,  while the owner is not immune to the laws...if they can prove they are actually doing all they can to correct the violation...but still are unable to do so is WAY different than someone just telling the HOA to go pound sand.



I take your point, Brian.  And it's important to understand that I'm not defending the HOA here.  I'm just trying to make the point that it's not exactly this little girl or her grandparents that are the bigger problem, it's the neighbors and the enormous can of worms this issue could open.

Several years ago when my parents passed away, I inherited their mobile home, situated in a 55+ park in Bend, Oregon.  I had no choice but to sell the place because I wasn't old enough to live there.  The CC&Rs were very specific.  Stupid?  Yeah - but just about as real as it gets.

Dave


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 22, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> if the grandparents were making no effort to move or rectify the situation, id agree 100%
> 
> however given that they have reduced their home price nearly 100k (off a 2xx original asking price) and still dont have buyers...what other solution do they have.
> 
> ...



Brian, they are trying to sell the house NOW, but remember, they have had their granddaughter for 4 years.  And it was a 55+ community THEN too.  As I mentioned previously, 4 years ago the florida market was hot.  I bought a house there (North Tampa, 1 hour from Clearwater), in Feb 04.  In 06 the two houses on either side of me sold for DOUBLE what I purchased mine for.  This was 1 hour from the beach.  No doubt a retirement community in clearwater would have brought them a substantial gain had they sold it when they originally ended up with custody of their granddaughter.  Instead, they chose to ignore the bylaw.  Why should the HOA be expected to make concessions for them?  And if they make concessions for their biggest rule, where do they stop?  I don't mean to sound heartless.  No, heartless would be to take the girl away and put her into foster care.  But it's not like the girl just moved in LAST WEEK.


----------



## DebBrown (Oct 22, 2009)

Wow!  My first reaction is shock.  But the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with laurac.  These people have been defying the HOA for more than 4 years.  Of course, they couldn't foresee the housing problems but if they had done the right thing to begin with, they wouldn't be in this situation today.  What a shame.

Deb


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 22, 2009)

DebBrown said:


> Wow!  My first reaction is shock.  But the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with laurac.  These people have been defying the HOA for more than 4 years.  Of course, they couldn't foresee the housing problems but if they had done the right thing to begin with, they wouldn't be in this situation today.  What a shame.
> 
> Deb



So, they sell their house when the market is HOT, and then what? All the other houses were selling for double and triple, too. Age-restricted communities generally cost less than other homes. Better to raise the girl -- on a fixed income, no less -- in a house that's PAID FOR. I agree that the HOA is legally within their rights. But it's not particularly compassionate. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that there are neighbors who _hate_ having a child in their age-restricted community.

We are talking _mainland_ Florida, after all. (This would never happen in Key West.)


-------------------
A true HOA story:

HOAs by-and-large suck eggs. Mine is run by a sanctimonious power-mad witch (with a capital "B"). I think busybodies are naturally attracted to that line of work.

However, I know a mortgage broker who also had enough of HOAs and their damned silly rules. So he managed to find a house in one of the few neighborhoods in Las Vegas that doesn't have CCRs. Two years after he bought it, a crazy Eastern European family moved next door. They painted their house bright pink and threw massive parties every weekend. They put so many weird doo-dads (like plastic flamingos and lawn jockeys) that the house looks like some low-rent amusement park ride.

Think my friend the mortage broker is going to have an easy time selling?


----------



## Fern Modena (Oct 22, 2009)

_:::Sigh:::_ I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate, I guess.

I live in an "Age Restricted" community with a Homeowner's Association, Dues, and CC&Rs.  I made sure to read the CC&Rs (aka "the rules") before I purchased.  

From reading the article, it appears that the grandparents have had custody for _four years_.  Was the child with them at that point, or at any point before the immediate present?  It would seem that this is so.  If it is, they should have been trying to sell their house THEN.  

My association's CC&Rs allow children under 19 to reside or visit in the community for no more than 180 days in any calendar year.  My granddaughter went to LeCordon Blue school in Las Vegas for a year when she was 18.  She couldn't stay with us, she rented an apartment.  That's the way it is, and we accepted it when we moved here.

_If the grandparents can't sell, can they rent, lease, do a rent to own, etc?  Are they exploring all their avenues?  We don't know that.
_
I can't see how a judge will allow the grandparents to continue to have the child reside with them in the development.  It would set a precident that most other owners wouldn't like, and would cause the CC&Rs to have to change.  

The judge's ruling against the child's residing in the community does not mean that the child must go to foster care.  The grandparents need to find another way to stay together.  

Fern


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't know the particular law in Florida and the specifics as to the legal status of this matter.  In most cases, however, covenants are restrictions that go with the property and are completely enforceable unless they are otherwise illegal (racial, religious).

I would be very suprised if the judge could legally supercede the covenants in the best interest of the child.  It is a sad situation.  The "balloon boy" was a sad case of exploitation. It is very sad that thousands of children are evicted and  homeless and the media basically couldn't care less.  

What we need is to put all the homeless children in balloons, or retirement communities, and perhaps people will pay attention and actually do something about it.


----------



## tschwa2 (Oct 22, 2009)

*55+ Communities*

I know one of the reasons for 55+ communities where I live is the school districts are full.  55+ communities can get permits to build because it would not require additional or expanded public schools.  Maybe the HOA was able to turn a blind eye until it was time to register for school and the school put pressure on the HOA because they didn't want to have to squeeze additional kids in from the 55+ community.


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Fern Modena said:


> _:::Sigh:::_ I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate, I guess.


Fern, I don't think you are being the Devil's Advocate at all.  I think that you are just demonstrating some common sense.

This is an emotional issue, and it would be easy to just say "Oh, those mean people who are trying to send that poor child to foster care!".  But when you look at the _*facts*_, one could almost conclude that the grandparents are using the child to gain sympathy from general public (via the media) to overlook the simple fact that the grandparents were too lazy to do anything about this up until this time.  Four years.  *FOUR YEARS!!!  *They couldn't gotten off of their duff and moved in FOUR YEARS?!?!?

And so what if they can't get a high price for their house now?  Guess what?  Other houses have decreased dramatically as well.  So even if they sell at a much lower price, they should have not problem finding another place to buy due to the depressed prices.

I feel sorry for the kid, but not because of the "big, bad neighbors" -- because of the irresponsible behaviour of her grandparents.



> I live in an "Age Restricted" community with a Homeowner's Association, Dues, and CC&Rs.  I made sure to read the CC&Rs (aka "the rules") before I purchased.


As a former HOA president of three years, I applaud you!  It is amazing to me how many homeowners feel that the CC&Rs don't apply to them because they didn't read them completely before they bought.  Really quite sad, IMO.

Kurt


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 23, 2009)

I do feel for the grandparents, as they have been put in the position of having to raise their grandchild, at a time when they were ready for retirement.  This is a big sacrifice, and I applaud them for it.  

If they need to place "blame" they could start with their daughter, for not stepping up to the plate, getting herself clean, and taking care of her responsibilities.  Or they could "blame" themselves, for not raising their daughter right in the first place, so that she does take responsibility (see a pattern here?  where did the daughter "learn" her irresponsible behavior?)  I know I am making alot of assumptions here, but one thing is for sure.  They cannot "blame" the HOA.  The rules were in place when they bought.  a 55+ community is not going to change.  That's why people bought in the first place.  Some wanted to be amongst their peers, some simply dislike sticky whiny brats.  As the parent of a 3 year old boy, I've seen seniors in grocery stores that are nothing but amused at my little boy's antics, even when I am NOT amused.  But I have also seen my cute little guy give a smile that could melt steel, and the recipient looked at him with nothing but total distaste.  Whatever.  

Someone mentioned in a previous post that, even though the market was hot 4 years ago, they would still have to buy an expensive house that they may not be able to afford (in so many words).  Unfortunately, life has given them a situation that requires sacrifice.  Many people sacrifice on a daily basis for one thing or another, they don't just place blame on others.  

Again, I feel for these people.  But blaming the HOA is not the answer.   They should have stepped up to the plate 4 years ago.  They could have sold their home, for a profit, moved into a condo or apartment complex for a few years, then would be in a position now to buy a home in a nice little community where their granddaughter would be welcomed.  Where she would have friends.  I think the girl deserves that, after all she has been thru.  The granddaughter is learning a lesson that will stick with her for the rest of her life.  That is, the "victim mentality".  Again, see the pattern?


----------



## itchyfeet (Oct 23, 2009)

Where was the HOA four years ago?  Why are they just now bringing a law suit?  Having lived under a HOA many years and indeed still own the property but rent it, I can vouch for the fact that if you are not one of the "in" crowd, a HOA can make things miserable for you.  The president of the HOA lived right across from the condo that I own (and was renting to three single women who were not "party animals" )  told the management company that he wanted my tenants to notify him when they were having overnight visitors.  I told the management co. that he could mind his own business - that he was violating my tenants' right to privacy.  No more was said.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 23, 2009)

Or within four years they would have had sufficient time to go through the process of getting a change to the by-laws to give the HOA flexibility to deal with issues such as this.

Or, if it became clear there wasn't the support to make such a change in the bylaws, to begin searching for new accommodations.

*****

Really, what has happened here is that they went into a community established and restricted to a specific life style.  Now, certainly through no fault of their own, their circumstances have changed so that they no longer fit that lifestyle.

And now they want the rest of the community to change to accommodate their circumstance.  I know they are only asking for "an exception" but they don't seem willing to acknowledge that granting the exemption they want is tantamount to eliminating the restriction entirely.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 23, 2009)

It appears the HOA has been involved in trying to resolve this dispute for five years.  The reporter in Brian's link says during his story, "This is not a new debate; it's been going on for five years.  By the time the grandparents accepted that it would be best to move, the housing market had crashed."

I really don't see that the HOA is at fault here.  If it's been going on that long and the judge's decision is due shortly, that means it probably didn't make it to the court system until after the HOA and owners had discounted all possible remedies that would have complied with the HOA covenants.  The owners were given the time to resolve the situation themselves but they didn't.  It's not the HOA's fault that the only remaining remedy is a court decision.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 23, 2009)

itchyfeet said:


> Where was the HOA four years ago?  Why are they just now bringing a law suit?



*Four years ago the HOA was addressing the issue.*  As the article notes, this matter has been going on between the parents and thoe HOA for almost five years.

This isn't a case of the HOA suddenly showing up and saying "we're getting ready to kick you out of the communith and there's a court hearing scheduled in next week."

Given the nature of court calendars and the low priority assigned to civil matters such as this, it's likely that the legal process has been going for at least a couple of years.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 23, 2009)

*Not black and white except that they can't do it.*



TUGBrian said:


> oh I have no doubt there are some fantastic little items in HOA bylaws for nearly every community that most if not all people never read when purchasing the home.
> 
> However in those cases,  while the owner is not immune to the laws...if they can prove they are actually doing all they can to correct the violation...but still are unable to do so is WAY different than someone just telling the HOA to go pound sand.



But they are not. As someone else mentioned they could quite easily rent the home to an over 55 party and rent themselves a non-restrictive home / apartment until the house sells. Like we tell so many timeshare owners renting is an option and if they aren't trying to do that they haven't made a real effort to handle the infraction. 

Like timeshare fees they agreed to the rules when they bought. It is not their place to get an exemption now. Otherwise, and no mater how much we may feel for the family, the restrictions that people depend on when making a purchase are meaningless. Unfortunately the HOA is correct to enforce the rules. It is not malicious it is just the rules they agreed to.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 23, 2009)

I think there's an assumption that this couple had the means to pull stakes and move.

The story doesn't make it clear, but most people living in age-restricted communities are on fixed incomes. It's harder for them to get a mortgage if they don't have cash on hand for a more-expensive house (moving from age-restricted to a house that is big enough to raise a granddaughter is usually a step up).

If I recall, the average income for retirees is in the $27K per year range.

That's $519 a week, assuming all of it is tax-free. Doubtful. Let's say they pay only 5% in total tax. (Which is ridiculously low. Sales tax hits retirees hard.) Would you want to move, take on a mortgage, and raise a six-year old on $493 a week?

If I were the grandfather, I'd let it go to court, too. That would give me a few years to save (although that's hard with an unexpected six-year old in the house). 

So, blame the mother, blame the grandparents, blame the girl for being born if you want. I doubt any of the involved parties wanted it to come to this. I think this is a good one for the "walk a mile in his moccasins" yardstick.

EDIT -- As for renting out their house, and renting a house in a non-restricted community: You think there's a high demand for rentals by retirees? 

Rent payments are not tax deductible. So they'd be paying tax on their rental income (which wouldn't be much), and not getting any deductions on renting another home. 

How about we insist they both go back to work (in a coal mine, preferably) so they can pay all the extra bills? Or we could insist that they move to a state that has a lower cost of living. Hopefully a really cold state. That'll fix 'em.


----------



## Patri (Oct 23, 2009)

What's the alternative if the HOA doesn't get involved? As the grandparents said, they are the only parents she knows or will ever know. That was true the day the child moved in. Did they plan to keep her there until she is 18?
What an artificial setting for a child, adolescent, teenager.
They don't have to 'buy up.' An apartment complex could be great. Probably many other children around.
I really don't get the term 'fixed' income either. Everyone has a fixed income. It's what the paycheck is. And these past few years for so many that is a flat or reduced figure, or none at all (except unemployment, which is also fixed).


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2009)

I guess im assuming (as well all are on both sides) that the grandparents have explored all possible venues for leaving the community.  

I also am assuming that they didnt just decide to sell their house within the last few months, and that its been on the market for quite some time.  (noted by the fact that they dropped the price significantly...generally one doesnt do this after only a short time on the market).

I guess the scenario I see is that the mother dumps the kids off with the grandparents...with both sides fully expecting the mother to finish rehab/whatever and return as the legal guardian to the child living somewhere else.

that didnt happen, and now the grandparents are now the permanent guardians with the mother out of the picture.

If this is the case (again assumptions)...it would have been ridiculous to think the grandparents would immediately make plans to move out of the community upon getting the child to begin with as they expected the mother to take the child back when able.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 23, 2009)

I found another story that says in February, 2004, the couple took in both their daughter and their granddaughter when the daughter was beaten, and then had the daughter removed from their home by police when she went back to her drug use.  This has been going on for a long time, and maybe all along they didn't care that they were breaking the rules, or thought they'd do it for as long as possible?

The story also says, "The association filed its lawsuit against the Stottlers and other families in violation, asking for an injunction to enforce their neighborhood bylaws."  Interesting that there other families also breaking the rules and being taken to court for it, but we're only hearing about this one.  It's easier to understand that the HOA's backs are against the wall, I think, when you know that they're dealing with multiple situations that need to be resolved.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Oct 23, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> I also am assuming that they didnt just decide to sell their house within the last few months, and that its been on the market for quite some time.  (noted by the fact that they dropped the price significantly...generally one doesnt do this after only a short time on the market).



It is the news link 2 years ago at 2007 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/202868/evicted_a_three_year_old_from_her_home.html?cat=8).  So they are selling their house at least for 2 years if not longer.

Look like it has go through a length process even at that moment. 

So the grandpa is disable, and grandmo still working 2 years ago, but can not afford all the legal cost to fight commuity.

Will see what court says.  Do Wish they win in this case.  But even if that is the case, that neigborhood is not good for the kid to grow up.

Jya-Ning


----------



## Nancy (Oct 23, 2009)

*Another side of story*

I've stopped myself from posting on this thread because I have very strong, and probably not the most popular, feelings about this.

Before I state them, I want to tell you some things about me.  I don't hate kids.  I had 2 and have 4 grandchildren that I love dearly.  And even though this isn't the case here, I don't hate pets; I've had both cats and dogs and loved them all.

When we purchased our condo in Florida, that we live in about 1/2 time, I checked out the association rules of the various condos we were interested in.  I did not want to live in a condo that allowed children or pets, but wanted to live in one that allowed both to visit for a limited amount of time.  We found one whose rules met our needs and that is where we purchased.  When I purchased, I had to sign a paper (contract) that I would obey the rules and the association also signed such a paper.

The people I feel sorry for are not the grandparents or the darling little girl, but the board of directors of this homeowners association.  They are being made out to being to the bad people in this, but they are only trying to enforce the rules that they and the grandparents and other owners signed.  If it was my community and the board was not enforcing the rules. I would sue the board because that is the contract we both signed.

This story has been around a long time, but the national news just got ahold of it.  Previous stories, and I don't know whether they are true or not, say the grandparents really didn't want to sell and had priced their condo really high so they could say they were trying to sell and couldn't,  Since they supposedly dropped the price $100,000 that seems to be the case.  It still may be priced too high to sell.  

I think the foster care is just something someone, grandparents, attornies, news, etc. made up.  I also think the grandparents are teaching this little girl the wrong lesson.  You don't have to obey the rules if you don't want to.

I could go on more, but wanted to state my feelings on this matter.

Nancy


----------



## Jya-Ning (Oct 23, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> I guess the scenario I see is that the mother dumps the kids off with the grandparents...with both sides fully expecting the mother to finish rehab/whatever and return as the legal guardian to the child living somewhere else.





SueDonJ said:


> I found another story that says in February, 2004, the couple took in both their daughter and their granddaughter when the daughter was beaten, and then had the daughter removed from their home by police when she went back to her drug use.



In Sue's link (2009)


> Just as clear, documents show, are the association's attempts to settle. In April 2005, the Stottlers promised that Kimberly would be gone in 18 months — enough time, they thought, to sell the house or await Broffman's return.
> 
> ...
> As the lawsuit stretches through its second year, with no clear end in sight, it appears neither side plans to back down.
> ...



So they actually try to sell the house look like from 2005, 2006.  And the HOA file motion at 2007.

If the property value drop this much, I don't see how anyone can say they need to enforce rules to protect the value of the house.  It is pretty unfortuane situation.

Jya-Ning


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 23, 2009)

I think I enjoy this discussion most, because it has polar opposing sides with strong feelings, and isnt even the least bit hostile. (IMO anyway)


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 23, 2009)

I just recalled that the senior condo in which my mother lived went through a somewhat similar situation a few years ago.  IIRC there was a family with children that wanted to buy a unit, and they threatened to sue the HOA for age discrimination for not allowing them to move in. 

As it played out, the family wanted to move in because the senior citizen condos were significantly cheaper than other available housing.  One big reason why the senior housing is cheaper, though, is because it is a senior housing project.

As a consequence the HOA has become very strict about enforcing the age requirements.  There was another case in which someone inherited a condo unit and wanted to move in permananetly, but they were several years too young.  They had to put the unit up for sale.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Oct 23, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> The story also says, "The association filed its lawsuit against the Stottlers and other families in violation, asking for an injunction to enforce their neighborhood bylaws."




This link tells a little bit about others
http://www.ccfj.net/HOAFLtoddlerevicted2.html

Jya-Ning


----------



## Transit (Oct 23, 2009)

My mom lives in a 55 and older community where the HOA is fighting the same battle on several fronts .It seems many original owners pasted away and their aires are renting to anyone they can sneak in ,some who have children.There are also renters and owners that have dogs but that is also against the rules.Transient renters or people who have been caught by the management company also decide to leave furniture ,cars and other junk when they leave which cost the HOA money to remove.The residents who are obeying the HOA terms are losing out on fees used to fight these issues.I do feel for the girl but understand the HOA's firm stand on this.


----------



## BevL (Oct 23, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> I guess im assuming (as well all are on both sides) that the grandparents have explored all possible venues for leaving the community.



You are entitled to assume that but don't be that sure.  I'd like to think that too but as chairperson of our strata council in a 65-unit condo building, I wouldn't necessarily agree.  When we've had these sorts of problems, whether it's kids or pets or renting (over 35 age restricted, size restriction for dog and no rentals), my experience is that people don't explore possibilities.  They simply go ahead, do what's convenient/expedient/financially viable for them and hope they either won't get caught or it won't be acted on, then complain they're being picked on/extenuating circumstances when we do take action.

After all, as the quote goes, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than get permission."

If my parents die, I expect I will have to sell my condo and move because I have made a promise to take their dog for them.  We have one, we're not allowed to have two.  That's just how life is and I knew that when I moved in and later when I made the decision to take in something that isn't allowed.

So as heartless as I may appear, I have to side with the HOA on this one.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 23, 2009)

Why is this such a big story?  Is it because the HOA is supposed to be heartless because the press and media says so?  Is it because the grandparents are the ones battling for good against evil because the press says so?  Is this as entertaining as a wrestling match?  A spectacle?

The media is exploiting a sad situation for profit.  The media does not care about the little girl or the grandparents.  All they care about is a story that people will watch because it is so, so  tragic with built in good guys and bad guys - just like a wrestling match.  Hearst, GE,Rupert Murdoch, etc etc could end this horrible tragedy in a second if they cared.  Just write a check for the grandparents house.  I am not saying save all the children in Africa who are starving to death.  I am not saying save all the children in this country that are on the street and homeless.

Just help this family who is helping you make a buck.  When the ratings go up the advertising rates go up and I am sure that this little situation is raising rates wherever it is being followed.  I guess the media would say that is against the rules. They would say that they don't make the news they just report it and make the money.  If they are following their rules it is not heartless - but if the HOA follows its rules it is heartless.  Go figure.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 23, 2009)

I have no problems, personally, with 55+ communities.  Only time (12 years to be exact) will tell whether I will ever live in such a community (actually more like 17 years, which is how long before I will be an empty nester)  

What I am wondering though, is how can a community legally define itself as a 55+ only community?   Would a 54 and lower community be legal?  Would a christian only, jewish only, people who drove red BMW's only community be legal?  

I am just wondering how this "discrimination" (for lack of a better word) is considered ok, when other "discrimination" is not.  Not trying to be controversial, just asking for the explanation, if anyone knows.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Oct 23, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> after all, there is obviously zero tolerance for bylaws!




Actually, the more I read, the more like the HOA is giving the leeway at 2005 (18 month).  And has to follow the regulation anyway at the end.  If they really ZT at first beginning (that will be 2004), the whole situation may have different turn.

Just unfortuante situation

Jya-Ning


----------



## BevL (Oct 23, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> I have no problems, personally, with 55+ communities.  Only time (12 years to be exact) will tell whether I will ever live in such a community (actually more like 17 years, which is how long before I will be an empty nester)
> 
> What I am wondering though, is how can a community legally define itself as a 55+ only community?   Would a 54 and lower community be legal?  Would a christian only, jewish only, people who drove red BMW's only community be legal?
> 
> I am just wondering how this "discrimination" (for lack of a better word) is considered ok, when other "discrimination" is not.  Not trying to be controversial, just asking for the explanation, if anyone knows.



I think it would depend on the legislation in the jurisdiction.  Here in British Columbia, age restrictions in stratafied developments is not considered a violation of the Human Rights Code because it is not a defined discriminatory ground with respect to occupancy of property owned by an individual.  In other words, while a strata complex could not pass a bylaw not allowing a certain race, gender or religion to live there (because those are defined as discriminatory), age is not a prohibited restriction.

However, you cannot discriminate based on age in rental properties.  That is a defined discriminatory ground in the particular legislation that we live under here.

Just my personal knowledge for where I live.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 23, 2009)

To the best of my understanding federal and state age discrimination laws only apply to workplace situations. Discrimination based upon race and religion has been specifically prohibited in real estate transactions by laws in every state and perhaps federal law( federal law definitely prohibits discriminatory lending based on race and religion which would apply to the vast majority of real estate transactions)  A state could make it illegal to discriminate by age in the sale of property if it so desired.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 23, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> I am just wondering how this "discrimination" (for lack of a better word) is considered ok, when other "discrimination" is not.  Not trying to be controversial, just asking for the explanation, if anyone knows.



The courts have sided with the HOAs time and again on this. 

It stems from the right to enjoy your property peacefully -- the concept has been around as long as the saying "A man's home is his castle." It predates the constituion, and is one of those holdovers from English common law. Age restrictions are the one exception to US fair housing laws -- and it's spelled out in the various laws.

If a bunch of retirees want a quiet, uneventful life -- after working their whole lives to do so -- it's not at all fair to tell them they cannot have it.

That being said, I wonder how many people in this community identify as "religious?" Doesn't really matter what religion, as their book would suggest the child's welfare is more important than enforcing the rules.

So long as the grandparents are actively trying to move (posting a for-sale sign and a too-high asking price doesn't cut it), but really trying -- like lowering their asking price by almost 50%, I think the community can cut them some slack. It's one kid, she doesn't have any playmates, and her life pretty-much sucks. Why kick them to the curb?

As for why is this a big story: I think it's because people are right sick of being told what to do. I think people are tired of dumb laws expelling kids for bringing knitting needles to school. I think we empathize because so many of us are close to foreclosure (or have already been there). We're sick of the fact that there are millions of vacant houses (1 in 9 are now vacant), and millions of homeless people (850,000 any given day of the week), and the country can't seem to do anything. There's not enough flu vaccine, but plenty of Viagra.

I'm going to stick with the WWGD position: What Would Gandhi Do?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 23, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> ... As for why is this a big story: I think it's because people are right sick of being told what to do. I think people are tired of dumb laws expelling kids for bringing knitting needles to school. I think we empathize because so many of us are close to foreclosure (or have already been there). We're sick of the fact that there are millions of vacant houses (1 in 9 are now vacant), and millions of homeless people (850,000 any given day of the week), and the country can't seem to do anything. There's not enough flu vaccine, but plenty of Viagra. ...



Well, I must be in the Other camp, because I am sick and tired of people thinking that the rules are made for everyone else!  It's one thing to work towards eradicating stupid rules while you're complying with them, but it's another thing entirely to ignore the rules and then throw a hissy fit when you're caught breaking them so that the media can turn your stupid selfishness into the latest sympathetic hysterical public frenzy.

But I'm in complete agreement with you about Viagra ads.     And I'll add, no matter how the latest commercials spin why old couples in separate bathtubs are sexy, I'll never understand that stupid ad campaign.  Climbing in and out and around porcelain bathtubs is dangerous!


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 23, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> The courts have sided with the HOAs time and again on this.
> 
> It stems from the right to enjoy your property peacefully -- the concept has been around as long as the saying "A man's home is his castle." It predates the constituion, and is one of those holdovers from English common law. Age restrictions are the one exception to US fair housing laws -- and it's spelled out in the various laws.
> 
> ...



I think you totally missed the point of the comment.  And...I thought religious stuff was not to be brought into tug (a direct reference to your larger than life Ghandi banner)


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 23, 2009)

I think the 55+ community situations are legal because these are property owners, not renters.  Just as an HOA can say "No Pets," or "No RVs in the driveway," they can also set the rules for those who elect to purchase a home in that neighborhood.  If a potential owner doesn't want to subscribe to the rules, they are free to purchase elsewhere.

Reading here that this is an HOA that is also battling other homeowners makes me wonder what else they have to deal with?  I can only imagine.

My daughter lived in Hawaii for awhile, and was the "Covenant Enforcement" person for a HUGE development on Oahu called "Ewa by Gentry."  She said there were more than _fifteen HUNDRED homes _in the development.  Her full time job was generating letters to homeowners informing them that they were in violation of the CC&Rs for the development, and telling them they had such-and-such amount of time to bring things into compliance, or they would be fined X amount of money daily until it was made right.  There were people on staff who did nothing more than drive around the neighborhoods looking for violations.  The HOA made a fortune enforcing the rules, which I guess were pretty substantial.

In my little neighborhood, we have only 33 homes in the HOA, and it's still a big hasssle trying to get/keep people in compliance.  I can't imagine the headaches of trying to manage 1500.  Anyone know how large this Florida neighborhood HOA is?

Dave


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 24, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> I am just wondering how this "discrimination" (for lack of a better word) is considered ok, when other "discrimination" is not.  Not trying to be controversial, just asking for the explanation, if anyone knows.





ScoopLV said:


> Age restrictions are the one exception to US fair housing laws -- and it's spelled out in the various laws.






laurac260 said:


> I think you totally missed the point of the comment.  And...I thought religious stuff was not to be brought into tug (a direct reference to your larger than life Ghandi banner)



You're right about the religious references. I really shouldn't have brought that up. I've been having problems with the sanctimonious witch at my HOA -- who claims to be an ardent follower of a particular religion, but her actions are nothing like that of the Deity she claims to follow. 

I was impressing that into the post, and it was uncalled for. I do think there are similar people in that Florida neighborhood, who claim to be religious, but fail miserably in the "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the _children _of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" aspect. That's where the Gandhi reference came in.

However, you can see that I answered your question about why age-restrictions are OK, and "Caucasians only, Zoroastrians preferred" neighborhoods are verboten. Age restricted community provisions are written into the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and reinforced in the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. Cases involving 55+ communities have been heard by the Supreme Court -- twice I think, and upheld, based on the old English Common Law tenets of "peaceful enjoyment" of one's property.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 24, 2009)

It seems to me that the HOA covenants should be followed by all in the HOA.  

This nation is built, in part, on rules to protect property owners.  I am fine with that.  What we need are some laws to protect children from homelessness and malnutrition .  Child abuse laws do neither. We simply are not committed as a nation to protecting our children from homelessness and malnutrition as a matter of right under law.  Every child should have the right to a clean, safe, roof over their head, nutritious food, medical treatment and education .  

I am sure that many here would disagree.


----------



## Passepartout (Oct 24, 2009)

I wish this weren't happening. It's ugly from either perspective, and won't be decided here in the Court of TUG. So here's my take:

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: 

Jim Ricks


----------



## Patri (Oct 24, 2009)

pgnewarkboy said:


> It seems to me that the HOA covenants should be followed by all in the HOA.
> 
> This nation is built, in part, on rules to protect property owners.  I am fine with that.  What we need are some laws to protect children from homelessness and malnutrition .  Child abuse laws do neither. We simply are not committed as a nation to protecting our children from homelessness and malnutrition as a matter of right under law.  Every child should have the right to a clean, safe, roof over their head, nutritious food, medical treatment and education .
> 
> I am sure that many here would disagree.



Interesting comment. Care to name names? I can't figure out who would fall into that category.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

Patri said:


> Interesting comment. Care to name names? I can't figure out who would fall into that category.



I won't name names, either. But I'm in agreement. People pay lip service to child welfare. Once it comes time to pick up the tab, the municipalities hand the check to the state. States hand it to the federal government, where it dies in committee. 

One of the two major parties calls child welfare policy like this "socialism" and does everything it can to stomp on it until it is dead.

And this party has no end of cheerleaders.     Some of them right here on this forum.

Depressing, if you ask me.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> People pay lip service to child welfare.



People also pay lip service to the concept of being able to live one's life in liberty and freedom from government intrusion and nannies.

But that's really the tradeoff here.  If you value personal freedom and liberty, you accept that part of the cost of that is that some people will use that freedom unwisely, to the detriment of themselves and their loved ones, sometimes with horrid consequences.

If you believe that protecting individual welfare is more important than maintaining personal freedom and liberty, you will accept a larger and more intrusive government, with associated losss of personal liberty, as the cost of accomplishing specified social goals.

Of course there are also many positions along the spectrum between the two poles of this question.

********

Despite the efforts of some to frame the issue simplistically, there are no easy answers.  

I disagree with pgnewarkboy, because I seriously doubt that anyone here disputes that children should not have the right to receive basic food, shelter, housing, and a safe and nurturing environment.Of course, this doesn't just involve children - there are countless other situations in which people through no fault of their own find themselves in desperate or debilitating circumstances. I similarly doubt that anyone here disputes that people should be able to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free of government instrusion and mandates.

I believe that all of us agree those are both wonderful, beautiful concepts.  But the reality is that those viewpoints often collide.  Discussions about such matters generally go much better if we recognize that these are matters about which reasonable people can and do differ.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> I won't name names, either. But I'm in agreement. People pay lip service to child welfare. Once it comes time to pick up the tab, the municipalities hand the check to the state. States hand it to the federal government, where it dies in committee.
> 
> One of the two major parties calls child welfare policy like this "socialism" and does everything it can to stomp on it until it is dead.
> 
> ...



Scoop...."one of the two major parties calls child welfare policy "socialism"?  are you trading in your pulpit for a podium?  I think politics falls under the same category as religion.

There is #1 protecting children, which is good for everyone, and there is #2welfare, which keeps the "down and out" down and out.  And there is #3socialism, which is a different animal altogether.  Count me in for #1.  count me out for #'s 2 and 3.  

None of which has ANYTHING to do with this thread!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 25, 2009)

I think the tug group is reflective of the community at large.  That is great because we all bring something different to the table for discussion.

I think the point is obvious, however, that many people in our great nation do not support the welfare of children.  That is why we had decades of children working in coal mines and other sweat shops.  If we all thought that children had a right to safe shelter, good food, clean clothing, good education, and medical care - we would have had it for them along time ago.  We have been the richest nation in the world for a long time and we still have children living on the streets in poverty.  Quite frankly, the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> I won't name names, either. But I'm in agreement. People pay lip service to child welfare. Once it comes time to pick up the tab, the municipalities hand the check to the state. States hand it to the federal government, where it dies in committee.
> 
> One of the two major parties calls child welfare policy like this "socialism" and does everything it can to stomp on it until it is dead.
> 
> ...



By the way scoop, there is a movement underfoot to turn the USA into a socialist country.  It has been in place since the 60's, and is gaining much traction right now.  I have been studying it at length in recent months.  A few will prosper.  The rest of us will suffer.


----------



## Fern Modena (Oct 25, 2009)

You know, this wasn't about politics in the beginning.  Can we return it to the proper subject before it gets locked?  Please?  I live in an "Over 55" Age Restricted Community, and I'm interested in the subject.

Fern


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> Scoop...."one of the two major parties calls child welfare policy "socialism"?  are you trading in your pulpit for a podium?  I think politics falls under the same category as religion.
> 
> There is #1 protecting children, which is good for everyone, and there is #2welfare, which keeps the "down and out" down and out.  And there is #3socialism, which is a different animal altogether.  Count me in for #1.  count me out for #'s 2 and 3.
> 
> None of which has ANYTHING to do with this thread!



Anywhere between 1 million and 1.5 million children will be homeless this year in America -- depending on who's statistic you choose to believe.

The fact that it isn't ZERO means that as a nation we are paying lip service to child welfare. It's that simple. 

And the HOA in this thread is trying to boot two* more kids out of perfectly good homes -- it doesn't take Evel Knieval to make that logical leap. We're in the middle of the worst financial period of our lifetime. The worst in more than 70 years. And some people are concerned more about CCRs than letting people have a place to live.

I've got a neighbor a few doors down that has like 10 relatives living in his house because they all lost their houses to foreclosure. My HOA is trying to kick the relatives out. Our CCRs say that's too many people in a house. While I agree that's too many, I say they're not hurting anyone. They're not hurting my property value. They're decent people. And they deserve a place to live. Good for my neighbor for stepping up in these hard times and giving a bunch of cousins, aunts and in-laws a place to live. There are only a few families on the street fighting this. The rest care more about their damned bylaws.

*The Vietnamese child isn't getting the same press as the Caucasian girl.


----------



## TUGBrian (Oct 25, 2009)

bah, enough with the politics


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 25, 2009)

Great - no politics.  I have not mentioned anything political.  I raise the question why two children in a retirement community is  more important than one million children out on the streets.  Forgetting politics, isn't that a moral issue?  Isn't the question being raised about the retirement community children being raised as a moral issue?  What is the right thing to do in such a situation.  We know what the legal issues are. I think it is a slam dunk that these kids will be kicked out by a court of law.  The application of the law is not a moral isssue.  Are the homeowners doing the moral thing?  That is a legitimate question that has nothing to do with politics.   Should the homeowners help their neighbor in a time of need?


----------



## Mel (Oct 25, 2009)

While I empathise with the families, I believe the HOA is doing the right thing.  The court can allow the families to stay with stipulations.  They  need to keep the house on the market, and accept a reasonable offer... they need to look into other options...

As a society we have gotten to the point where people don't think the rules/laws should apply to them.  But when we scrap the rule of law, what is left?  The other residents signed a sales contract stipulating that they would be in a community without children.  They seem to have made an allowance, to let the child stay for 18 months, yet she remains 4 years later.  It is not a question of the HOA and residents being mean, but of preserving their own rights.

I recall a similar situation with an HOA in Maryland around 10 years ago.  A family had a deaf child, and placed a fence around their front yard, in violation of the community's covenants.  At issue was the safety of the child, who had not learned to stay in the yard, and could not hear traffic approaching.  As I recall, the count allowed the fence to stay for a set period of time, and the parents were instructed to teach the child to stay in the yard, or to fence the BACK yard - which was also agains the covenants, but would be a reasonable exception to the safety of a child.

18 months was a reasonable accomodation.  4 years, is stretching the patience of the other residents.


----------



## Rose Pink (Oct 25, 2009)

Mel said:


> While I empathise with the families, I believe the HOA is doing the right thing. The court can *allow the families to stay with stipulations. They need to keep the house on the market, and accept a reasonable offer... they need to look into other options...*
> 
> As a society we have gotten to the point where people don't think the rules/laws should apply to them. But when we scrap the rule of law, what is left? The other residents signed a sales contract stipulating that they would be in a community without children. They seem to have made an allowance, to let the child stay for 18 months, yet she remains 4 years later. It is not a question of the HOA and residents being mean, but of preserving their own rights.
> 
> ...


 
That makes sense to me if it can be enforced.  "A reasonable offer" can be up to interpretation unless _strictly defined_.  I do tend to side with the HOA on this one. The HOA rules regarding age are quite clear with no room for individual interpretation (unlike the boy scout thead where the term "weapon" is up to individual interpretation).  I think (or want to think) that the grandparents were hoping this was a temporary custody and so did not immediately put their home up for sale because they intended the child to go live with her mother.  At what point it became evident that she was in their permanent custody, I do not know, but it is clear to me that they need to change their place of residence.  We are not talking about throwing them out on the street, homeless and hungry.  

That said, people can become very attached to their homes.  Asking them to move can be tantamount to asking them to give up a much loved friend.  It is a very emotional issue that goes beyond rules and money.  It can be downright irrational.  For instance, my FIL does not want to leave his home.  It is filthy, falling apart and unsafe but it is his home.  We've begged him to come live with us.  I flat out told him that home is not a house but home is the place where your family--who loves you--is.  He still won't budge.

Personally, I would not want to live in a community that does not want me and I would be willing to take a loss if it meant I could move to somewhere more accepting so I could get on with the job of raising my child in peace. 

I don't know all the details of this case and I'm glad I don't have to be the judge who decides this.  Seems like a no win situation.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

So, what would the "HOA is right" crowd do about my situation with the neighbor with too many people in his house?

Throw them all out? They have no place to live. 

The CCRs are quite clear. We can't have a dozen people living in a single-family house full time. It's 100% against the rules.

I don't care about the rules. The needs of these few outweigh the needs of the neighborhood. A few of my neighbors feel the same way. About half the neighborhood doesn't care enough to have an opinion. The other half wants them gone -- why, I don't know. We hardly ever see them. There are too many cars parked in front of that house, but that's it.

Kick 10 people to the curb, literally? Because it's more aesthetically pleasing when there aren't a lot of vehicles parked on the street?

How is that the morally correct choice?


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> So, what would the "HOA is right" crowd do about my situation with the neighbor with too many people in his house?
> 
> Throw them all out? They have no place to live.
> 
> ...



sooo...what if someone has 8 kids?


----------



## goaliemn (Oct 25, 2009)

We had something similar happen in our HOA.  We had someone running a business out of their home, and it was a daycare business.  In the bylaws, it listed you couldn't run a business that generated alot of traffic, and daycare was actually listed as an example.  They claimed they didn't know it was against the rules.  The also pulled up bushes and trees to make it easier to put out a sandbox and some other play gear.

They refused to talk about it with the board until lawyers got involved.  They did the "The economy is down and this is bringing us money line" but we had recieved numerous complaints.  Thats why we enforced it.  

I'm thinking thats what happened here.  Afew years ago someone complained about it, and they worked to resolve it.  Now, they're moving to forclose on the property.  My board is dealing with that now for someone else who hasn't been paying dues.  It sucks, but rules are rules.  I moved into an HOA controlled property because I liked the rules.  I also had to sign off that I agreed to them all before I closed.  I'm assuming the people here did as well.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> sooo...what if someone has 8 kids?



Based on your comments -- make the family move. Even if it would ruin them financially to do so. After all, rules are rules.

Unless that isn't actually how you feel. I would like to hear from the "HOA is right" side about this. It feels like me and three other families against the neighborhood sometimes. But I've never been one to back down if I think the "crowd" is wrong.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

We lived in an HOA community in FL that was ridiculous!  You could not have your garage open, except for entering and exiting.  No parking on the street, and you were only allowed to park in your driveway if you couldn't fit all your cars in the garage; in other words, if you had a 2 car garage, and 2 cars, you were only allowed to park in your garage.  Nevermind that this was FL, meaning, no basements.  And of course sheds weren't allowed either.  Very few people were able to comply to that rule.  All fences had to be exactly the same.  When you cut your grass, you HAD to blow your clippings.  These were all offenses that got you a write up.  We had a guy who went around on his golfcart and wrote you up.  Big stogie in his mouth, and a chip larger than TX on his shoulder.  One day he approached me because we had a grill sitting up against our house, waiting for goodwill to come.  He came walking up my driveway to let me know he was going to have to write me up for it.  After a few heated words, I told him, "next time I break an offense, send it to me in writing.  I don't appreciate being harrassed on my own property".  When I asked him if HE lived there, he said, "No, are you kidding?  I can't AFFORD to live here!"  

Now, the flip side is, we live in an HOA community in OH now.  Very few rules, but one "biggie" is that all structures must be approved, and all fences (also needing approval) must be this one particular type.  The neighborhood was a few years old wen we moved in, and already there were atleast 3 different fences, and almost nobody submits for approval of structures (decks, sheds) before building.    The board's policy is they do not police the neighborhood, another neighbor needs to complain before the board will do anything about it.  There are so many offenses now, that even if someone DOES complain about something, the board almost has no recourse.  My dh is on the board now, and this causes him much frustration.  I keep telling him that if the board doesn't enforce the rules they themselves are there to govern, I am going to put a purple gazebo in my front yard, and let them make me move it!


----------



## Rose Pink (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> So, what would the "HOA is right" crowd do about my situation with the neighbor with too many people in his house?
> 
> Throw them all out? They have no place to live.
> 
> ...


 
I don't see it as morally correct to put people on the streets.  That isn't the case in the OP.  Whether there can be a temporary reprieve would be up to the residents.  May I assume that your HOA laws can be altered by a majority vote?  Also, does the fire department have any jurisdiction over occupancy rate?  That is one thing to look into.  I doubt they do for a private home but may if this is a PUD?  The fire department usually has to sign off on plans before a PUD is built but that is for adequate fire hydrants and turn arounds for the trucks. I don't think it applies to individual occupancy rates as it would for (as an example) hotel rooms.

Your 50% apathy rate seems accurate.  That's about what I found when I served on a community council and later on a planning commission.   The antis will almost always come out in more organized numbers than the pros (even if the number of people in favor is greater than the number against).  Negativity seems to rally people more.  I don't know why.  They will also be louder and appear to give a greater presence than they truly  have.

If it were me, I would talk with my neighbors as calmly as possible to try to dispel any negativity they have.  Ask them to give you logical reasons--most won't have any but they will still think they are.  If you jump down their throats about their lack of compassion, they will fight you.  You can present your own compassion without demeaning theirs.  That will get more people on your side.  Not an easy thing to do to stay calm when the stakes are so high.

If too many cars is a main point, you and others can show your compassion by offering to let them park in your driveways.  I think that's what Gandhi would do.   Cars parked at the curb on a narrow PUD street is a safety hazard--especially for fire trucks.  You can do alot to alleviate that by helping them find parking in other residents' driveways.

Hopefully, these people will find good employment and be able to move on within six months.  I doubt any of them really want to live on top of one another nor in a community where they are not welcomed.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> Based on your comments -- make the family move. Even if it would ruin them financially to do so. After all, rules are rules.
> 
> Unless that isn't actually how you feel. I would like to hear from the "HOA is right" side about this. It feels like me and three other families against the neighborhood sometimes. But I've never been one to back down if I think the "crowd" is wrong.



Based on MY comments?  All I've said, all along, is that the family with the granddaughter had plenty of time (4 years), and a ripe housing market, for which to rectify their situation. They chose not to.   It's not like I said, rip the kid from their arms and send her off to the orphanage or anything of the sort! Yikes!


----------



## Rose Pink (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> I thought religious stuff was not to be brought into tug (a direct reference to your larger than life Ghandi banner)


 
That one went right over my head.  Since when did Ghandi become a religion?


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

Rose Pink said:


> That one went right over my head.  Since when did Ghandi become a religion?


The part that "went over your head" was the banner that was removed.  On it was written a comment that Ghandi supposedly made, and it was about christ and christianity.


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> Based on MY comments?  All I've said, all along, is that the family with the granddaughter had plenty of time (4 years), and a ripe housing market, for which to rectify their situation. They chose not to.   It's not like I said, rip the kid from their arms and send her off to the orphanage or anything of the sort! Yikes!



You assume they had a choice. What if moving ruins them? Does that make a difference?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> Based on your comments -- make the family move. Even if it would ruin them financially to do so. After all, rules are rules.
> 
> Unless that isn't actually how you feel. I would like to hear from the "HOA is right" side about this. It feels like me and three other families against the neighborhood sometimes. But I've never been one to back down if I think the "crowd" is wrong.



I'd have to know more details to answer definitively, such as how long this situation has been ongoing in your neighborhood, but I think the HOA could make a term allowance for the situation you're describing.  Say six-to-twelve months for the guests to make other arrangements?  That sounds reasonable to me.  (And incidentally, that sounds like what the HOA attempted to make available in that Florida situation, but those owners dragged their feet.)

It doesn't sound reasonable at all to me for an owner to completely disregard the covenants and restrictions of the neighborhood in which s/he's purchased, simply because the situation s/he wants to live in now is different from the one s/he was in at the time of purchase.

(Not to delve into the politics here, Scoop, but if you asked my family they'd tell you I'm a liberal to the core, just this side of socialist. -   Drives my husband bonkers. -  I don't know why you'd expect someone with my political leanings to think that defying HOA rules is okay, though, because it's not.  It's simple to me - either follow the rules or, if the time comes that you're breaking them, work with the HOA and your neighbors so that your transition out of the neighborhood can be as smooth as possible.)


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I'd have to know more details to answer definitively, such as how long this situation has been ongoing in your neighborhood, but I think the HOA could make a term allowance for the situation you're describing.  Say six-to-twelve months for the guests to make other arrangements?  That sounds reasonable to me.  (And incidentally, that sounds like what the HOA attempted to make available in that Florida situation, but those owners dragged their feet.)



This has been ongoing for about a year. Unemployment here is pushing 14%. There's simply not enough income for them to move out. If they go, they're going into shelters, and adding to the public burden. They're trying to work, but it's spotty at best. Temp jobs, part time jobs, etc. And none of them have a decent credit score thanks to foreclosure.

I'm giving them a pass (and giving them vegetables from my garden, etc. We do what we can.) I'm willing to let this situation slide as long as the economy is in the skids. I don't understand why the chairwoman of the HOA isn't, considering she claims to be a devoted [religious group member.]


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> You assume they had a choice. What if moving ruins them? Does that make a difference?



Do you know that it would ruin them?  All I (and others) are saying, is that 4 years is plenty of time to find your way out of a seemingly "no win" situation.  My father always said, if you want to do something bad enough, you will find a way.  

On another note...I think you and I would find disagreement over a tuna sandwich.....


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> Do you know that it would ruin them?  All I (and others) are saying, is that 4 years is plenty of time to find your way out of a seemingly "no win" situation.  My father always said, if you want to do something bad enough, you will find a way.
> 
> On another note...I think you and I would find disagreement over a tuna sandwich.....



Do you know that it_ wouldn't _ruin them?

I know plenty of people who could not possibly change their financial situation in four years. Add an unexpected young child to the equation, and I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of doubt.

Let's look at it from the six year old's perspective -- her mom is a junkie, she has no playmates in her neighborhood, her community wants her gone, and we do not know what's going on financially with her grandparents.

Lacking more information, I'm in favor with letting the family stay together at the only home she's ever known.


----------



## laurac260 (Oct 25, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> Do you know that it_ wouldn't _ruin them?
> 
> I know plenty of people who could not possibly change their financial situation in four years. Add an unexpected young child to the equation, and I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of doubt.
> 
> ...



so, that tuna sandwich then....miracle whip, or mayonnaise??


----------



## ScoopKona (Oct 25, 2009)

laurac260 said:


> so, that tuna sandwich then....miracle whip, or mayonnaise??



Hand-rolled spicy tuna sushi, naturally!  (Fresh ahi tuna, of course.)


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 25, 2009)

The thing about children is that they are innocent.  They did not ask to be in the dire straits they often are put in by adults.  Whether their parents are drunks, drug addicts, layed off, or plain stupid it is not the fault of the kids.  Children don't choose their parents, their grandparents, or where they live.  What we know is that they are innocent and defenseless.  This child is a part of a family and a situation that is not of her choosing.  

The news story says that the only alternative for this child is foster care.  Letting the child stay until the house is sold and the family can move together is the moral choice.  Forcing this six year old  into foster care is really, really, cold.


----------

