Quote:
Originally Posted by mtdjed
An opinion:
1/ The Fair Housing Act was Title 8 part of the Civil Rights act of 1968
2/ The Housing for Older People Act (HOPA) of 1995 amended the Fair Housing Act of1 968
a/ Deleted certain requirements for certain facilities and services for qualified housing for persons 55 and older
b/ Set up system allowing some discrimination by Familial age regarding sales of properties in 55 and over communities
Also, to eliminate issues that might lead to suit over refusal to sell/rent to certain persons under the age of 55. Spells out that requirement regarding age -- (i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older. It makes the Housing Facility or community responsible for maintaining the ratio above.
Now the speculation is how that is done or maintained. The Developer has a goal to maintain the status of an over 55 community which allows them to market to that segment of the population. At some point that responsibility migrates to the community. Perhaps the CDD's.
It would seem that the law specifically benefits the developers, and then the residents only as a byproduct. So, as long as the Developer sells the initial homes, they have control of whom they sell to by age. But, what do they use as their basis for the 80 percent. The whole of the Villages (which gets older each day) or some segment they designate? By law (HOPA) they must track. Could be that over 95% of the homes currently have at least one person over 55. Our community of Caroline at Lake Sumter has around 90 homes and I would guess that 95% have at least 1 person over 55. The Developer could easily keep track of that number even considering sales outside of their control. Likely, they could sell the next 2000 homes to families under 55 years of age without threatening that 80% threshold.
The other part are the covenants regarding persons under 19. I suspect that is a local issue, that might be more of a CDD management issue.
To the OPs concern, yes, we will have the likelihood of many persons under 55 down to age 19 and it would appear that they are entitled to be here. And contrary to some posts, that does not indicate that they are ne're-do-wells.
There also could be some exceptions to the under 19 rule. For example, an owner 55 or older might by some reason become the guardian. Would that owner be required to move to be the guardian. Who administers the exceptions? Would you have any way to overrule by law?
|
The exception to the under 19 rule - I've posted about this before. A couple of women, both clearly of the appropriate 55+ age, moved in to the neighborhood over a year ago. They BROUGHT WITH THEM a young child, under 10. That - should not have been permitted, there should be no exception made for that.
The exception should only be for those residents who already live here, and find themselves in a custodial situation after they've moved in. If you know in advance that you have a kid living with you, then you don't move into a 55+ community.
Fortunately this couple didn't stay (we think they were sisters with their nephew), but they were bad enough neighbors that the couple next door to them moved to another neighborhood. These women didn't care what the rules were about their nephew. They didn't care about the rules for anything else either. They didn't keep the lawn neat - it was mostly weeds and bare spots, they never used a sprinkler on it. Weeds were growing through cracks in the driveway, they were parking their car in the golf cart driveway, with half the tires on the lawn, making divots in the ground as a result. They didn't respond to anyone offering to help, they were perfectly fine doing things their own way.
We think they might have been tenants who moved in right after the house was sold. But then that would fall on the landlord, who apparently also didn't care.
People who move in, knowingly breaking the rules, are not going to care about any of the rules. Those are the people you need to say "nope - you can't move in here" to.