[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

You were doing so well with the explanation until that part I bolded. The regulation is that one person in each household must be 55 or older. Thus a single home with four owners of ages 55, 19, 19, and 19 technically is a senior owned home and counts toward the 80% requirement. The language of the law applies to every single 55+ development in the country. It is not specific to here. So in an extreme example of 25 homes like the one above, there would be 100 residents of the development with 25 people of age 55 and 75 of age 19. Of course there is only an 80 % requirement so you can substitute 5 more 19 year olds for 5 seniors and still be in compliance as you'd still have 20 of the 25 homes being owned by at least one person of age 55+. So 20 people age 55+ and 80 age 19. Isn't math fun?

Not exactly.

At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older;

[VillageIdiots]

Originally Posted by Chi33

"Okay, play softball? Nope. "


"...much of what happens has gone unreported by the local media..."

No kids playing softball. But there is a minimum age to participate and, interestingly, it's not 55 or even 50, it's 40.

Why should the local media be any different than the rest of the media today? It's amazing to me the things that go on in this country, at all levels, that the media chooses not to report in order to maintain a certain narrative and agenda.

[sallybowron]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

IMHO this thread has run its course. All the factions have been heard from and there is nothing more to add. The sweeping generalizations and broad brush condemnations have been made ad nauseum and we get where you stand. Thankfully, many have a more compassionate view.

Here is the fact - there is no rule, law, or covenant that prevents an adult child from living with their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, enemies, benefactors, etc. If you want to legislate against that reality, good luck. Otherwise, just accept that this is reality or figure out a way to find a place that is totally free from such flaws and move there. Had Hitler prevailed in the 40s you might have found Deutchland to be perfect.

Well said Ed

[Chi33]

Originally Posted by sallybowron

Well said Ed

Sally, I totally disagree with you. There is much to be said. Its the ones who keep just reading the title and not the thread who say (oh, its legal for 55 and under to live here).

That HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAD. It's a highjack deflection is all. Also, when someone doesn't want to read this, then they dismiss it. Why don't they just not read it?

So, does anyone here have an adult child living with them who can tell me what an average day is for them? I am interested.

PS: Sally, how was your surgery? Hope you feel better. Even people like me can pray.

[Marathon Man]

I believe that ownership is used. 80% of the homes must be owned by at least one person over 55. Who lives in the house does not matter. It's been a while since I read through the Housing for Older Persons Act, but that is my memory of it.

I never understood why some of my neighbors (everyone in TV is my neighbor) are so upset by this. OK. None of us knew the details of the 55+ restriction when we came here. Nor did we even think to look into it. Most or all of us thought that we would see only people in their late 50's and up. In other words, we thought that 55+ meant ONLY 55+. But, surprise, that is not what it means. I for one shrug my shoulders and consider it another of a million details in life that has not had a negative affect on me.

As far as the crimes committed by the so called "loser" children of residents, seems to me that most of them are drug possession and DWI. No different than many of the 55+ arrests.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

I believe that ownership is used. 80% of the homes must be owned by at least one person over 55. Who lives in the house does not matter. It's been a while since I read through the Housing for Older Persons Act, but that is my memory of it.

I never understood why some of my neighbors (everyone in TV is my neighbor) are so upset by this. OK. None of us knew the details of the 55+ restriction when we came here. Nor did we even think to look into it. Most or all of us thought that we would see only people in their late 50's and up. In other words, we thought that 55+ meant ONLY 55+. But, surprise, that is not what it means. I for one shrug my shoulders and consider it another of a million details in life that has not had a negative affect on me.

As far as the crimes committed by the so called "loser" children of residents, seems to me that most of them are drug possession and DWI. No different than many of the 55+ arrests.

Excellent sane post. Mark me as your fan. Gracie.

[Chi33]

I saw a post (and it made me think of this) that an adopted adult child (29 years old) armed with kitchen knifes cornered his mother in a bedroom closet because he wanted more of his SSD benefits. That was on Wise Way in Pine Hills on the 18th (a week ago). What do you think Jonathan Wood does during the day? His name is fair game because he was booked.

yesterday, in The Villages of Malloy Square on Mullins Path, a 36 year old female (Elyse Marquette) was arrested for violating her probation. She was arrested at 11pm. Can you just imagine living next door when the SWAT team comes to arrest her? She was booked also so can be named.

There is an adult child crime thing going on, so once a week something is reported, that is still once a week! I have never been arrested as maybe many of you haven't. One time is too much. I am judging.